[EM] Strategy-free criterion

[Closed Limelike Curves]

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. In what meaningful sense is it
strategy-free?

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 5:16 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Some time ago, I wrote a criterion that I called Strategy-Free-Criterion
> (SFC).
>
> Is that what you were referring to?
>
> It was about a circumstance in which wv Condorcet is strategy-free. At
> that time, autodeterence hadn’t been considered.
>
> SFC didn’t catch-on, & I haven’t heard mention of it lately, & so I don’t
> know it’s definition. But wv Condorcet is strategy-free in a meaningful
> sense.
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 05:07 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 14:15 Closed Limelike Curves <
>> closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com>
>> Ppwrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to work out how the strategy-free criterion actually relates
>>> to strategy, because it just sounds like it means the majority-Condorcet
>>> criterion ("if a candidate majority-beats every other, they have to win if
>>> everyone is honest"). @Michael Ossipoff ?
>>>
>>  Closed, isn’t “Strategy-Free Criterion” your new name for FBC.
>>
>> It’s a very inaccurate name. FBC-complying methods aren’t strategy-free
>> in any sense.
>>
>>  But they’re free of any need for *drastic* defensive strategy
>> (favorite-burial or any defensive order-reversal).
>>
>> You want strategy-free? The wv Condorcet methods, such as RP(wv) &
>> MinMax(wv), are strategy-free in a meaningful sense…effectively free of
>> need for any defensive strategy…due to their autodeterence.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240531/4116c9ab/attachment.htm>