[EM] Investigating criterion compliance

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Kristofer,

If it's in scope of what you're proposing, I think Mono-add-top + Smith is the biggest outstanding one.

I can't quite picture how your program would tackle this. My DNA framework also essentially gives "definitely not" or "don't know." Unfortunately these two criteria are in the latter category (i.e. they actually look compatible). But the framework offers rather limited maneuvering room to test Mono-add-top.

Another apparent compatibility in my framework is Condorcet and Later-no-help. They're known to be incompatible, but I dumped a lot of time into trying to understand how such a method would work according to the framework. Then I discovered I already had a named method that supposedly meets both. I plan to make a post on this soon, kind of interesting.

Kevin
votingmethods.net



Kristofer Munsterhjelm via Election-Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> a écrit : 
I first started thinking that monotonicity and resistant set might be
compatible due to a program I wrote that would find minimal 
manipulability methods for a restricted number of candidates and voters. 
This program showed that minimum manipulability was not markedly 
affected by insisting on monotonicity, at least for three candidates up 
to ten voters, and four candidates with 4-5 voters.

Given this, and that I eventually ended up finding a monotone resistant 
set method, I thought I'd next try to create a more general automated 
proving program to rule out certain criterion combinations. Such a 
program would return either "these criteria definitely can't all be 
passed by the same method" or "don't know".

If I do end up writing something like that, what combinations of 
criteria would you be most interested in investigating?

-km