[EM] Bucklin is as good as I said. Recantation of Recantation.

[Michael Ossipoff]

No, I was right the 1st time.

What gave me the mistaken belief was that I was reading FairVote’s
objections to Bucklin, & one of them was that two candidates can receive
majorities in the same round.

Two candidates *could* both end up with vote-totals equal to a majority of
the voters, because of course someone can give each a vote.

But that’s irrelevant, because, after one candidate gets a majority, there
aren’t any more rounds.

So it’s not a matter of more than one candidate being able to eventually
get majorities—It’s about who gets one first.

They said that two candidates could get majority in the same round. …but
certainly not without indifference.

If A is ranked over B on a majority of the ballots, then it’s impossible
for B to get a majority until at least a round after A gets a majority.

…& there won’t be such a later round, because A has won.

So it’s true that, without indifference, the CW always wins.

…& there’s no strategy problem.

As I said, if there’s so much indifference that no one gets
approval-majority, then Approval strategy obtains.

So what I said in my initial post titled “Bucklin” was true.  …& it was my
recantation that wasn’t true.

…& Bucklin is as good as I said !!



On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:51 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Oh, I was thinking that the winner had to have a majority of all the votes
> that could potentially be cast.  Because the requirement is just = a
> majority of the voters, then what I said isn’t true.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20231031/06586f9c/attachment.htm>