<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/10/2016 11:48 AM, Michael
Ossipoff wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">But that doesn't change the fact that all
of my examples of wv's CWs "protection" guarantees had the CWs
preferred from both sides, and supported from one wing, the wing
opposite the truncating or burying wing.<br>
<br>
That's the "wv-like strategy" that I've been referring to.<br>
<br>
...even though wv has an additional anti-burial guarantee, or
even though its anti-burial guarantee is stronger and more
general.</blockquote>
<br>
Mike,<br>
<br>
I'm not completely clear on the exact definition of this
property/criterion that you think is worth giving up compliance
with Mono-add-Plump<br>
and Plurality to have.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Yes, in the standard chicken-dilemma
example, MDDTR elects A, and that's a violation of the Plurality
Criterion. Try to forgive MDDTR for electing the most
favorite-popular candidate who isn't majority-beaten :^)</blockquote>
<br>
I'm afraid I find the justification "most favorite-popular
candidate who isn't majority-beaten" to be quite oblique and
arbitrary-sounding.<br>
<br>
"Majority-beaten" can go away if we add a few ballots that just
plump for nobody, so big deal. Either elect the candidate that is
doing the <br>
"majority-beating" or forget about it.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOKDY5BEh1x-eyFPzwdZTd6WKFVi+-7ApgZzjjaSDJrpEaXcEA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
class="gmail-m_2963832077801936759gmail-m_2095362792134820979m_-2574322773842955947m_2128683487745746556moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>