Dear Kevin! You wrote: > SFC talks about situations with a *sincere* CW.
I thought the example you gave was the sincere preferences. If not, what were the sincere preferences in that example and which was the sincere CW in that example? > Unfortunately, I don't believe SFC is worded as "the majority must have a > way of voting..." The point is that this majority needn't do anything special. Still, SFC only refers to situations where "nobody reverses a preference", so SFC doesn't help when people insincerely order-reverse. I'd rather have pretty good strategy-proofness against order-reversal, which DMC provides better than wv-Condorcet as Forest showed, than complete strategy-proofness against half-hearted strategies where the strategizers don't order-reverse for some unknown reason... Yours, Jobst ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
