At 08:36 15.12.99 , Bart Ingles wrote: >Markus Schulze wrote: ... >> Example: >> >> 7 voters vote A > B > C. >> 6 voters vote B > A > C. >> 8 voters vote C > B > A. >> ... >The claim under AV/IRV that your second choice will never harm your >first choice is also false -- the six BAC voters can attempt to coerce >some of the ABC voters into supporting B, either by truncating or by >order reversal (announcing their plans publicly before the election. If that is the STV method, then the second choice can't harm the candidate of the first preference. The word "false", could be changed to the word "true".
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Multiwinner participation rule. Reply to M. ... Craig Carey
- Re: [EM] Multiwinner participation rule. Reply to... David Catchpole
- [EM] Pattanaik and Peleg's 'Regularity' is not be... Craig Carey
- [EM] Cloning: 2nd preference doing worse is i... Craig Carey
- Re: [EM] Pattanaik and Peleg's 'Regularity' i... David Catchpole
- Re: [EM] Pattanaik and Peleg's 'Regularity' i... Craig Carey
- Re: [EM] Pattanaik and Peleg's 'Regularit... David Catchpole
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing Markus Schulze
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing Bart Ingles
- Re: FPTP ...) In STV 2nd preference won't harm 1s... Craig Carey
- Re: FPTP ...) In STV 2nd preference won't har... Bart Ingles
- Re: FPTP ...) In STV 2nd preference won't har... David Catchpole
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing Craig Carey
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing DEMOREP1
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing DEMOREP1
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing Markus Schulze
