[EM] POLL: References (was Re: Poll, preliminary ballots)

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 2024-05-14 19:55, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> It seems to me that the Weak Defensive Strategy Criterion was a 
> generalization of FBC:
> 
> One should never get a worse result because they didn’t vote something 
> they like less over something they like more.
> 
> Strictly-speaking, Condorcet methods fail, but wv Condorcet doesn’t fail 
> importantly. Most other Condorcet methods fail badly, because they fail 
> FBC badly.
> 
> I don’t expect Benham to either, though wv is all that I’ve tested.

https://electowiki.org/wiki/Weak_Defensive_Strategy_criterion says that 
Schulze passes.

So does 
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-April/102004.html.

It also seems to define the criterion a bit differently:

>> If a majority prefers one particular candidate to another, then they
>> should have a way of voting that will ensure that the other cannot win,
>> without any member of that majority reversing a preference for one
>> candidate over another.

which would indicate that the majority can bar a particular candidate 
from winning by voting in some given way that does not involve order 
reversal, only truncation.

If there's a sincere CW, then it's the same as your criterion, but if 
not, then there may be one majority who prefers A to B and another that 
prefers A to C, but no majority preferring A to both B and C. Then the 
majority preferring A to B should have a way to stop B from winning...

I think? It's not my criterion.

-km