<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/11/24 Kevin Venzke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stepjak@yahoo.fr">stepjak@yahoo.fr</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span><var></var>Hi Jameson,</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><br></div><font face="Arial" size="2">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<div style="BORDER-RIGHT:#ccc 1px solid;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;BORDER-TOP:#ccc 1px solid;PADDING-LEFT:0px;FONT-SIZE:0px;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:5px 0px;BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;LINE-HEIGHT:0;PADDING-TOP:0px;BORDER-BOTTOM:#ccc 1px solid;min-height:0px" readonly>
</div></div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT:0px">
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN-RIGHT:0px;FONT-FAMILY:times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">De :</span></b> Jameson Quinn <<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">À :</span></b> Chris Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au" target="_blank">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</a>> <br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">Cc :</span></b> MIKE OSSIPOFF <<a href="mailto:nkklrp@hotmail.com" target="_blank">nkklrp@hotmail.com</a>>; "<a href="mailto:fsimmons@pcc.edu" target="_blank">fsimmons@pcc.edu</a>" <<a href="mailto:fsimmons@pcc.edu" target="_blank">fsimmons@pcc.edu</a>>; em <<a href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@electorama.com</a>> <br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">Envoyé le :</span></b> Mercredi 23 Novembre 2011 4h18<div class="im"><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">Objet :</span></b> Re: [EM] An ABE solution<br></div></div></blockquote></blockquote>
</font><br></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT:1ex;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;COLOR:#000;FONT-FAMILY:times new roman,new york,times,serif;BACKGROUND-COLOR:#fff"><br> </div></div></blockquote>
<div>My perspective is the following:</div><div class="im">
<div>1. Most real-world elections will have a sincere CW, although that might not be visible from the ballots.</div>
<div>1a. Those elections without a sincere CW don't really have a "wrong answer", so I don't worry as much about the pathologies in that case.</div>
<div>2. Therefore, we can divide FBC-violating strategies into two (overlapping) classes: those which work when there is not a CW among the other voters, which I will call "offensive" strategies, and which usually work by creating a false cycle; and those which work when there is no CW among the other voters, which I will call "defensive".</div>
<div>3. I consider that a method with no "offensive" FBC violations is good enough. That's why I've used those labels: why would "defensive" strategies be a problem if "offensive" ones weren't?</div>
</div></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">Having some problems understanding where you're coming from. A defensive FBC-violating strategy isn't likely going to be </div>
<div dir="ltr">provoked by an offensive FBC-violating strategy. I would expect it to be provoked by the truncation of other voters.</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">If you want to say that it's enough for methods to not be suspectible to strategies that would necessitiate defensive compromise</div>
<div dir="ltr">from other voters, then I might agree, but that is almost the same thing, in practice, as saying the method should satisfy FBC.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Kevin, I suspect that you're probably closer to the truth than I am on this, because you have more experience twiddling the knobs on your simulator. But your brief assertions here don't really give me enough fodder for me to understand why I'm wrong, if I am.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Do you agree with me that lack of a sincere CW will be rare? Do you agree with me that some methods have strategic possibilities which are irrelevant as long as there is a sincere CW who is known as such by most voters? Do you agree that some FBC violations fall into that category? </div>
<div><br></div><div>Apparently you do not agree that all FBC violations which start from a non-CW scenario fall into that category; and apparently this is because non-FBC-violating truncation strategies could cause the non-CW scenario. If I've read you correctly on this, you may well be right, but I don't follow all the logic. But even if I have and you are, the questions in the preceding paragraph are more important for the big picture.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Jameson</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">Kevin</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div></font></span></div><br>----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>