[EM] CD & truncation-resistance. Definitions people like.

[Michael Ossipoff]

Regarding the CD example, Chris suggested scenarios in which one of the
other candidates, not A, is the CWs.

What if B is CWs?

Then we have a truncation example, in which the C voters are truncating B.

For C to win would be a violation of truncation resistance. ...if B is CWs
& this is a truncation example.

But no problem: MMPO elects A instead of C.

Chris recently mentioned an incompatibility between CD & Minimal Defense
(Eppley's votes-only version of SDSC or WDSC).

Maybe the truncation resistance failure of electing C is related to that
incompatibility.

Electing A avoids the problem.

When discussing Margins Sorted Approval, I objected that it penalizes
truncation instead of electing the CWs. But that isn't really a problem:

If your truncation is principled, then you have no reason to object when
the CWs thai you don't like doesn't win.

..nor does anyone have a complaint.

If your truncation is careless, then just be more careful

If your truncation is hurried, then allow yourself more time.

So the election of A isn't a problem if B is CWs & it's a truncation
example.

Plurality Criterion? Of the candidates other than the most pairwise-opposed
one, A is the most favorite.

There's no important objection to electing A if B is CWs.

What if C is the CWs, & the A voters are burying C?

C would be a peculiar CWs, unsupported from both sides. No support other
than hir 1st choice voters.

There's surely no important objection if such an unsupported candidate
doesn't win.

So, no matter how you look at it, there's no objection to electing A in the
CD example.
--------------------
I told of how someone didn't accept ICT because of its relatively wordy &
unfamiliar definition.

When offered list of methods, that person chose Approval as favorite.

Hearing the MMPO definition, she didn't consider it un-intuitive,
complicated, overly wordy or without obvious justification.

It elects someone least unpreferred to someone else.

What could be more simple, obvious & natural?

She didn't object to MMPO as she objected to ICS

Yes there are strongly-felt objections to MMPO. I've answered them.

Yes MMPO shares wv's possibility of perpetual burial fiasco, but it may
well never happen. It doesn't keep wv from being one of the most popular
methods.

FBC, Weak CD, wv strategy. A lot of important advantages.

Wv strategy means that the CWs is better & more easily protected than in
any other rank-methods.

Michael Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161011/c25ddda6/attachment.htm>