<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>From: <strong class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Michael Ossipoff</strong> <span dir="auto"><<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com">email9648742@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 11:23<br>Subject: Re: Some thoughts on Condorcet and Burial<br>To: Forest Simmons <<a href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com">forest.simmons21@gmail.com</a>><br></div><br><br><div dir="auto">Two other methods that seem to me to be autodeterrent are:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Smith//SP</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Apply SP(Borda)to the Smith-set.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(…though plain SP(Borda) by itself seems autodeterrent too.)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Smith//Approval:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Elect the Smith member with highest implicit Approval.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 11:10 Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Forest—</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But the incentive for the potential buriers is the matter of whether burial’s expectation is positive or negative. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You can have a procedure that probably elects the CW, but that doesn’t figure in the expectation. What matters for the burial’s expectation is the relative-probabilities of electing Bus vs BF, & their utilities for the burier.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We can’t affect the utilities of those two outcomes for the potential buriers. We can only increase the factor by which the probability of electing a Bus is greater than the probability of electing BF.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"> Black (with Borda applied to the Smith-set) & SP, it seems to me, are more likely to elect Bus than BF.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Likewise, it seems to me, so is your suggestion to elect the candidate wit the largest wv against the candidate who has the most wv against hir in a defeat. I call that Greatest Win Against Greatest Loser (GWAGL).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But, for the greatest likelihood of electing a Bus in a many-candidate election, doe anything else equal your suggestion to apply takedown (primary & secondary) to SP (agenda-ordered by Borda)?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I call that method TSP.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…partly to stand for Takedown-SP…</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…& partly because TSP is also the name for the powerful cleaning alkali, Trisodium Phosphate.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">TSP cleans it up !!!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What’s that? We aren’t allowed to use Trisodium Phosphate?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That’s okay, we aren’t allowed to use an adequate voting-system either.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 01:14 Forest Simmons <<a href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com" target="_blank">forest.simmons21@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div dir="auto">Woodall has been a great EM pioneer .... and has done us a great favor by making clear some of the limitations of the UD box, as well has showing us by his Solid Coalitions methods some of the previously unknown possibilities of working within that box.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I have suggested some of the "pockets of predictability" within the UD domain that have not been fully exploited for burial resistant methods ... at the same time coloring outside the UD lines as you have (eg with approval cutoffs) to surpass some of the UD limitations.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'm glad that you did not give up In helpless futility .... nut have pragmatically pressed on. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In general, impossibility proofs are valuable by making clear the assumptions that entail impossibility ... so we know which lines we have to color outside of if we want to avoid dead endends.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The three candidate two stage fresh ballot runoff is one non UD tool tailor made for finishing elections that surpass the boundaries of UD possibilities.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Sometimes with manipulated ballot sets we can narrow down to two candidates that form a satisfactory basis for a two candidate fresh ballot runoff.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But when you push the boundaries further, a two candidate runoff isn't good enough.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But in the case of a three candidate Landau set ... the right kind of fresh ballots runoff is adequate for recovering the buried candidate.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I doubt there has ever been (or ever will be) a real public election ballot set with more than three uncovered candidates.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is easy to show that when a CW is buried, it will still be a member of (not only the Smith set), but also a member of Landau.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Smith may have a large clone set of "buses", but (with statistical certainty) one of these buses will cover all of the others.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">These tools are outside the scope of Woodall ... who would surely appreciate their usefulness were he still in the loop.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">fws</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Nov 3, 2023, 1:32 PM C.Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au" target="_blank">cbenham@adam.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Forest,<br>
<br>
Douglas Woodall in a 1996 article demonstrated that Condorcet is
incompatible with Later-no-Help.<br>
<br>
By simple logic we know that any method that fails Later-no-Help
must be vulnerable to Burial strategy.<br>
<br>
Therefore your quest to invent a completely burial-proof Condorcet
method is futile.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X9600100X" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X9600100X</a><br>
<br>
</p><blockquote type="cite">Theorem 2. (a) Even if truncated
preference listings are not allowed, CONDORCET is
incompatible with <br>
PARTICIPATION, MONO-RAISE-RANDOM and MONO-SUB-TOP.
<br>
<br>
(b) In general, CONDORCET is incompatible with LATER-NO-HELP,
LATER-NO-HARM,
MONO-RAISE-DELETE, MONO-SUB-PLUMP and,<br>
in the presence of PLURALITY, MONO-ADD-TOP.
<br>
<br>
(c) There is no election rule that sutisfies LATER-NO-HELP and
LATER-NO-HARM,<br>
and
that also satisfies CONDORCET whenever there are no truncated
preference listings. <br>
<br>
Election 3. (1 seat)<br>
3 A>B>C<br>
3 B>C>A<br>
3 C>A>B<br>
2 A>C>B<br>
2 B>A>C<br>
2 C>B>A<br>
<br>
Consider Election 3. By symmetry, the result must be a 3-way
tie; but, by the axiom
of discrimination, there must be a profile P <br>
arbitrarily close to this (in the proportions
of ballots of each type) that does not yield a tie. Without loss
of generality, suppose a
is elected in P. <br>
<br>
But c becomes the Condorcet winner, and so must be elected by
CONDORCET, ...if all the abc ballots are replaced by a
(contrary to LATER-NO-HELP), <br>
or if all the bac ballots are replaced by a (contrary to
MONO-RAISE-DELETE and MONO-SUB-PLUMP), or if all the abc ballots
are replaced by acb
<br>
(contrary to LATER-NO-HELP and LATER-NO-HARM together).<br>
<br>
This proves (a), (c) and three
parts of (b). </blockquote>
<br>
The three relatively burial-resistant Condorcet methods that meet
mono-raise and don't ask or allow voters to enter an explicit
approval cutoff that I like are<br>
Smith//Approval (ranking), Margins-Sorted Approval (ranking),
and<br>
<br>
Smith//Descending Acquiescing Coalitions.<br>
<br>
Not allowing voters to rank among unapproved candidates increase
the risk for Burial strategists that they will simply elect their
"bus". <br>
<br>
By itself DAC (one of Woodall's inventions) meets Later-no-Help
and Participation (both incompatible with Condorcet) but can
behave very oddly and badly in the presence <br>
of one or two weak should-be-irrelevant candidates (which is why
I'm wary of Smith,DAC).<br>
<br>
So defining it thus: Voters rank from the top, equal ranking and
truncation is fine. Eliminate and drop from the ballots all the
candidates not in<br>
the Smith set. <br>
<br>
Ballots "acquiesce" to a candidate or set or subset of candidates
(a "coalition") if they vote no other (outside the set or subset)
candidate strictly above any of them.<br>
<br>
Number all the possible coalitions according to how may ballots
acquiesce to them. Start with the highest-numbered and disqualify
all the candidate not in it.<br>
Proceed to the next-highest numbered that contains any not-yet
disqualified candidates and disqualify those not in it, and so on
until one candidate is left undisqualified.<br>
<br>
46 A<br>
44 B>C (sincere might be B or B>A)<br>
10 C<br>
<br>
In this example all candidates are in the Smith set. The
acquiescing coalitions are AC 56, BC 54, AB 46, A 46, B 44,
C 10.<br>
<br>
AC disqualifies B, BC disqualifies A so C wins.<br>
<br>
That would be great for fans of the Minimal Defense criterion,
but would be sad if the B>C voters are sincere and the C voters
are<br>
truncating against B.<br>
<br>
Chris B.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p>
<div>On 4/11/2023 12:05 am, Forest Simmons
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 6:21
PM C.Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">cbenham@adam.com.au</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p><br>
Why do we support the Condorcet criterion? For me
there are three reasons:<br>
<br>
(1) Failure to elect a voted CW can give the voters
who voted the CW over the actual winner<br>
a potentially very strong, difficult (if not
impossible ) to answer complaint.<br>
<br>
And those voters could be more than half the total.<br>
<br>
(2) Always electing a voted CW is (among methods that
fail Favorite Betrayal) is the best way to minimise<br>
Compromise incentive.<br>
<br>
(3) Limited to the information we can glean for pure
ranked ballots (especially if we decide to only refer<br>
to the pairwise matrix), the voted CW is the most
likely utility maximiser.<br>
<br>
If there is no voted CW , then the winner should come
from the Smith set. Condorcet is just the logical<br>
consequence of Smith and Clone Independence
(specifically Clone-Winner).<br>
<br>
Some methods are able to meet Condorcet but not Smith,
but hopefully they get something in return.<br>
(For example I think Min Max Margins gets
Mono-add-Top and maybe something else).<br>
<br>
So coming to the question of which individual member
of the Smith set should we elect, I don't see that a<br>
supposed, guessed-at "sincere CW" has an especially
strong claim, certainly nothing compared to an actual<br>
voted CW.<br>
<br>
Suppose sincere looks like:<br>
<br>
49 A>>>C>B<br>
48 B>>>C>A<br>
03 C>A>>>B<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto">My favorite burial proof method is to elect the
nemesis of the nemesis of the (repeated) Submidway Approval
Elimination winner.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Max Approval is 52</div>
<div dir="auto">Min Approval is 3</div>
<div dir="auto">Midway is 27.5</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So we eliminate C.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Updating approvals we have 52 for A and 48 for
B. Midway is 50. B is the only Sub Midway candidate so A is
the SubMidway Approval winner.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The nemesis of A is C, and C has no nemesis
because it not pairbeaten. We respect the Condorcet Criterion
and elect C, a very weak CW.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">There is no way out of it if we want a Condorcet
Criterion Compliant method.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p> <br>
Suppose that all voters get about the same utility
from electing their favourites. In that case A is the
big utility<br>
maximiser.<br>
<br>
Now suppose that this is say the first post-FPP
election, and the voters are all exhorted to express
their full<br>
rankings, no matter how weak or uncertain some of
their preferences may be, because we don't want
anything <br>
that looks like the (shudder) "minority rule" we had
under FPP.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This reminds me of the practice omanipulative
judges in the US warning jurors to ignore their sacred right
of "Jury Nullification" (inherited from English Common Law).</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Those lying (by intimidation) judges are a
disgrace to their office ... and should be stripped of their
holy robes ... imho.</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p> <br>
So they vote:<br>
<br>
49 A>C<br>
48 B>C<br>
03 C>A<br>
<br>
C is the voted CW. For some pro-Condorcet zealots,
this is ideal. No sincere preferences were reversed or
<br>
"concealed", resulting in the election of the "sincere
CW".<br>
<br>
(In passing I note that in most places if the
non-Condorcet method IRV/RCV were used, A would be
uncontroversially<br>
elected probably without anyone even noticing that C
is the CW.)<br>
<br>
Backing up a bit, suppose that instead of the voters
being exhorted to fully rank no-matter-what, they are
given the<br>
message "this election is for a serious powerful
office, so we don't want anything like GIGO ("garbage
in, garbage out")<br>
so if some of your preferences are weak or uncertain
it is quite ok to keep them to yourself via truncation
or equal-ranking."<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">That warning should be mandatory ... as should
an honest effort to "fully inform" a jury of their most sacred
rights predatimg even the Magna Carta.</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p> <br>
So they vote:<br>
<br>
49 A<br>
48 B<br>
03 C>A<br>
<br>
Now the voted CW is A. Should anyone be seriously
concerned that, due to so many voters truncating, that
some other<br>
candidate might actually be the "sincere CW"?<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Your example shows the wisdom of electing the
ballot CW when there is one.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In fact, all of our burial resistant methods
elect the voted CW when one exists. But when one does not
exist we suspiciously suspect that its absence was most
likely caused by subversion of a CW, since that is by far the
easiest way to create a beat cycle ... whether innocently or
with "malice aforethought."</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p> <br>
For me, if voters have the freedom to fully rank but
for whatever reason choose to truncate (and/or
equal-rank, assuming that<br>
is allowed) a lot of that is fine and the voting
method should prefer not to know about weak and
uncertain preferences.<br>
<br>
The type of insincere voting that most concerns me is
that which produces outrageous failure of
Later-no-Help, achieving by order-reversal<br>
Burial what could not have been done by simple
truncation.<br>
<br>
46 A<br>
44 B>C (sincere is B or B>A)<br>
10 C<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Let's see what our Sub Midway Approval
Elimination burial resistant method does here:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The respective max and min implicit approval
scores are 54 for C and 44 for B. So Midway is 49. Both A and
B have Sub Midway Approval leaving C as the candidate whose
nemesis's nemesis we should elect.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">C's nemesis is B, and B's nemesis is A.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So A is the winner of our burial resistant
method.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">How does this work?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Well, Nanson is very good at fingering the
Burial Faction Favorite, but Poor man's Nanson aka
SubMidApproval Elimination is even better at electing the BFF
than ordinary Nanson or RP wv, although they are both pretty
good at it as this example shows.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Once you have the likely BFF you can follow the
cycle forward one or backward two candidates to the "bus"
under which the buried candidate was buried. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">[Electing this "bus" is what makes the method
backfire on the burying faction ... so electing the strongest
bus (their could be a clone set of them) is the proper aim of
a good burial proof method designer ... to completely deter
potential subverters from even flirting with the idea.]</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Like I said you can go in either direction
around the cycle to get to a "bus" from the BFF candidate ....
but it's better psychologically to elect the syrongest wv
defeater of the strongest wv defeater of the Nanson winner
.... as opposed to saying "Elect the candidate with the most
losing votes against the Nanson winner" .. they are almost
always the same candidate even when Smith has more than three
members.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Like I say, SubMidAolroval Elimination is more
reliable than even ordinary Nanson or RP wv at finding the BFF
candidate. But for the curjous, you can always do a sincere
runoff between the likely strongest Bus (the nemesis of the
nemesis of the likely BFF), and the Smith candidate with the
fewest losing votes against it (i.e.against the bus) the same
as the weakest Smith weakest Smith candidate to defeat the
BFF.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">[It is easy to show that a subverted CW always
defeats the BFF, which beats the bus that beat the buried
candidate that precipitated the insincere cycle resulting from
the burial.]</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In this example the sincere runoff (were that
option to be taken) would be between the Bus A and the Smith
candidate B with the fewest losing votes to it A.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">For the sincere winner of this runoff we have to
go clear back to the original scenario. And it turns out that
A is the sincere winner of the runoff, because C, the sincere
CW was acting more like a BFF ... so not a finalist in the
runoff!</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p> <br>
Electing B here is completely unacceptable. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Right, and now we have a method designed to
automatically avoid that kind of mistake.</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p>Regardless of whether or not the B>C voters are
sincere, there isn't any case that B has a stronger<br>
claim than A.<br>
<br>
I don't like (but it can sometimes be justified) a
larger faction being stung by a successful truncation
Defection strategy of a smaller one, but apart<br>
from that I consider a lot of truncation to be normal,
natural and mostly desirable.<br>
<br>
More later.</p>
<p>Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"><b style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Forest
Simmons</b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;float:none;display:inline!important;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span><a href="mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Benefit%20of%20a%20doubt%20runoff%20challenge&In-Reply-To=%3CCANUDvfru_xs%2BEE6kd7Xbb4p%2Bsh3Zijqy-yCmBwNPOdwLP1emgQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E" title="[EM] Benefit of a doubt runoff challenge" style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">forest.simmons21 at gmail.com</a><br style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">
<i style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Sun
Oct 29 21:30:58 PDT 2023</i>
<hr style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;font-family:monospace;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Are the beatcycles that sometimes arise from expressed ballot preferences
... are these cycles more likely to arise from occasional inevitable
inconsistencies inherent in sincerely voted ballots? ... or from ballots
that reflect exaggerated preferences from attempts to improve the election
outcome over the one likely to result from honest, unexagerated ballots (?)
Should Condorcet methods be designed on the assumption that most ballot
cycles are sincere? .... or on the assumption that most are the result of
insincere ballots (?)
Some people think that the question is irrelevant ... that no matter the
answer, the best result will be obtained by assuming the sincerity of the
voted ballots. Others think healthy skepticism is necessary for optimal
results. What do you think?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></div>