[EM] Fwd: Coombs. Elimination Examination.
km_elmet at t-online.de
Wed Sep 27 06:52:00 PDT 2023
On 9/25/23 20:41, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Some academic authors have high praise for Coombs. One say that, with
> sincere ranking, & fewer than 5 candidates, Coombs always elects the CW.
That can't be right:
A is the CW but has highest last preference count and so is eliminated
However, it *is* true for three candidates.
> But Coombs is obviously vulnerable to east burial strategy. In
> particular, trust & betrayal perpetrated by the voters of a “ lesser”-evil.
Clearly then, knowing this fact, the voters who propose and enact Coombs
must be tough voters who would never ever bury. Therefore Coombs' burial
incentive is no problem wherever it would be proposed.
I jest :-)
My real point is "beware arguments that are too powerful; they might
just lead to absurdity".
Amusingly, according to James Green-Armytage, if we don't care about
strategic susceptibility, then Coombs has a better VSE than IRV. So if
we can simply discard strategy by the (too general) argument that
strategy will never come into play, it's Coombs, not IRV, that ought to
More information about the Election-Methods