[EM] Alright, burial might be prohibitive problem for wv & MMPO.

[Kevin Venzke]

There are conflicting incentives, at least under the Schwartz methods. Contributing to the defeat strength of some candidate A>B is bad for B, but it can be good for A, because it can give A a stronger path against "top-set" candidates, and make *them* lose. There's a transitivity to defeats.
If you have an estimate of who is the worse of two frontrunners (and there are just two), you shouldn't rank that candidate over anybody. This is true even if you feel indifferent among your bottom-set.
Kevin

      De : Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
 À : election-methods at electorama.com; C. Benham <cbenham at adam.com.au> 
 Envoyé le : Vendredi 30 septembre 2016 20h40
 Objet : [EM] Alright, burial might be prohibitive problem for wv & MMPO.
   
Chris was right about bottom-end burial being a likely big problem for wv & MMPO.In wv & MMPO, if people rate candidates as top-set & bottom-set, then, contrary to what I said, they _won't_ be deterred from burial among their bottom-set.   ...because they don't care which of them wins, if they have at least some tiny chance of defeating them all...as they could if the CWs's voters ever forget to plump, or misjudge who's CWs. (If the CWs is in their bottom-set).If so, then maybe burial could be so rampant that the CWs would rarely win...a mess.Bucklin & Approval (including 3-Slot ICT as an Approval-version) have a simplicity, solidity & reliability that pairwise-count unlimited-rank methods don't have.Michael Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161001/107cb099/attachment.htm>