Just a few more things to add to my reply about "random-fill": Even if the insincere extension is concerted rather than radom, it can't cause VA to violate majority wishes by avoidably electing a candidate over whom a majority have expressed preference for a particular other candidate. That's true whether "majority" is defined as Blake defines it (majority of those expressing an opinion between a particular pair) or as the term is usually used (more than half of all the voters taking part in the multi-alternative choice). The only exception is where Schulze (and almost as often) SD will let that happen in a subcycle in order to avoid the clone problem, on the reasonable asumption that what happens in a subcycle is less important. But Margins, though it, like any Condorcet Criterion method, won't violate majority rule as Blake defines it, fails majority rule as it's usually defined. If a majority indicate that they would rather have A than B, Margins will sometimes pick B. *** To finish what I was saying about the sincerity standard, I talked about Blakes' criticism of VA, involving random-fill, but I didn't talk about Margins' failures, though I've mentioned it before. It would be nice to not be forced by defensive strategy need, to be so insincere as to vote a less-liked alternative over a more-liked one. That happens in Margins, but not in VA or Approval. It would be even nicer not to have to vote a less-liked alternatiave equal to a more-liked one. That happens in Margins anytime lots of people truncate, as experience suggests will happen quite a bit in public elections. That kind of forced insincerity is necessary in Margins, but not in VA. *** Cancellation: Let's not skip by the fact that if the insincere extension is really random, as befits the name "random-fill", then in a public-size election, it will cancel out, and won't affect who beats whom, and won't affect a CW's win. Mike
