<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
<div>3: A</div>
<div>20: A>B</div>
<div>25: B>A</div>
<div>3: B</div>
<div>20: C>B</div>
<div>29: C<br>
<br>
C > B 49-48, C > A 49-48, B > A 48-23.<br>
<br>
Top Ratings scores: C 49, B 28, A 23<br>
<br>
Approval scores: B 68, C 49, A 48.<br>
<br>
On 9/7/2016 7:09 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">IBIFA elects C. U/P elects B. It's clear
to me that B is better. The 3 A-only voters are likely
attempting a chicken strategy.</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
C: C is the clearly voted Condorcet winner and by far the most
top-rated candidate. The suggestion that "B is better" because of<br>
some guess that 3 truncators are "likely" attempting some strategy
is absurd.<br>
<br>
The best we can reasonably do about chicken strategy is just
prevent (or reduce the likelihood of) it from succeeding. If the 3
A voters' were attempting a<br>
"chicken" (defection) strategy against B, then electing C means
it failed. <br>
<br>
BTW, if we weaken all the candidates by 3 plumping votes each,
thus:<br>
<br>
<div>20: A>B
</div>
<div>25: B>A</div>
<div>20: C>B
</div>
<div>26: C</div>
<br>
then the U/P winner would change from B to C.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/7/2016 7:09 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAO82iZzXG4fc+dva2ya5hyhtVb-Zkre0BxOR0vtq5kzzKvxWkQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2016-09-06 16:07 GMT-04:00 C.Benham <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au" target="_blank">cbenham@adam.com.au</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><span class="gmail-">On 9/7/2016 1:21 AM, Jameson
Quinn wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>40: D>...>A,B</div>
<div>35: A>B>D</div>
<div>25: B>...>A,D</div>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div> ...<br>
But then IBIFA elects B. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You're right. So, let's find a situation where they
actually differ:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>5: C>B>A,D</div>
<div>5: C>A>B,D<br
class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">
30: D>...>A,B,C</div>
<div>35: A>B>D,C</div>
<div>25: B>...>A,D,C</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>In this scenario, IBIFA elects A, and U/P (my new name
for DA, as I stated separately) elects B. I'd still argue
that B is the right answer... though I think this whole
scenario (and any other I can think of where the two
systems differ) is getting pretty implausible, so it's
hardly worth arguing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>No candidate X's Top-Rating score is higher than
any candidate Y's approval (i.e. above-bottom rating)
score on ballots that don't top-rate X, so<br>
IBIFA elects the most approved candidate, B.<span
class="gmail-"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Obviously, one could tweak
these numbers to try to make one or the other
system look better or worse.</blockquote>
<br>
</span> C: Well then I am very curious to see any
example where IBIFA "looks worse" than DA.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In your format:</div>
<div>3: A</div>
<div>20: A>B</div>
<div>25: B>A</div>
<div>3: B</div>
<div>20: C>B</div>
<div>29: C</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>IBIFA elects C. U/P elects B. It's clear to me that B
is better. The 3 A-only voters are likely attempting a
chicken strategy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is an artificial scenario designed to make IBIFA
look bad. You could do the same to make it look good. I
don't think this proves anything besides the fact that
IBIFA is not strictly dominant over U/P.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="" avgcert""="" color="#000000" align="left">No virus
found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4649/12956 - Release
Date: 09/06/16</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>