OUCH!
I must have been asleep.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:31:01 +0100 (CET) Kevin Venzke wrote:
Dave,
--- Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit :
Why bother?
How often do you get a cycle in a real election?
I don't know why you always say that cycles would be rare. I think they would be fairly common, for example:
49 A 24 B 27 C>B
This scenario doesn't require a conflicted electorate. It just takes some truncation.
While we must provide for cycles because they would CERTAINLY happen if we did not make provision, I claim there are limits to how fancy we need to get for something so rare.
Mixing in Approval complicates strategy considerations even though, as noted above, it rarely affects results.
Actually, the strategy should be easier. I know that you understand Approval
strategy, even if it offends you to have to use it. However, I don't think
you even understand the rules of cycle resolution based on defeat strength, so how can you claim which has more complicated strategy?
It is not a "which". You have to plan among:
Winning without a cycle.
Get a cycle AND make Approval come out right with the result.This thread is after Approval, so has not been into any other method of cycle resolution - which is a debate topic, itself.
Kevin Venzke
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
