<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Hi,<br></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"></font><div style="margin-left: 80px;"><font face="Arial" size="2"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">De :</span></b> Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet@lavabit.com></font><br><font face="Arial" size="2"> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">À :</span></b> Kevin Venzke <stepjak@yahoo.fr> </font><br><font face="Arial" size="2"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc :</span></b> election-methods <election-methods@electorama.com> </font><br><font face="Arial" size="2"> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Envoyé le :</span></b>
Dimanche 19 février 2012 15h28</font><br><font face="Arial" size="2"> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Objet :</span></b> Re: [EM] Conditionality-by-top-count probably violates FBC</font><br><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font><br>On 02/19/2012 09:37 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote:<br>> Does anyone understand why the DH3 concept exists? Why envision three<br>> major blocs, instead of two major blocs plus the small bloc belonging<br>> to the pawn candidate? That doesn't require four candidates and more<br>> closely resembles how burial problems are usually considered...<br><br>If there are just two blocs, then the DH3 scenario never gets off the ground. Say you have a nobody, Z, and two viable candidates (A and B). Then say the honest ballots are something like:<br><br>53: A > B > Z<br>46: B > A > Z<br> 1: Z > A = B<br><br>Then the B-supporters can't get the ball rolling, at least not in Condorcet, by burying A. Even if they
do so, A will win by first preferences alone.<br><br>Technically speaking, it takes three viables to make a cycle, and you need cycle-making/turning strategy to make DH3 work in Condorcet. In Borda, you could do a sort of DH3 with only two blocs, but that's because Borda doesn't satisfy Majority.<br></div> </div> <br><br>Yes, I don't understand why it would be viewed this way. I.e. why would one assume that "two major blocs" means one bloc is a majority. I think a<br>"pawn" could have 10% or even more of the votes. It's as though one wants to be sure to be able to say that absolutely nobody likes the pawn.<br><br>I think that if DH3 could ever actually happen it would be better news than bad, just because it would mean we are able to have three blocs like that!<br><br>Kevin<br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>