Dear Peter, I claimed that SEC... >>> make sure option C is elected in the following situation: >>> >>> a% having true utilities A(100) > C(alpha) > B(0), >>> b% having true utilities B(100) > C(beta) > A(0). >>> >>> with a+b=100 and a*alpha + b*beta > max(a,b)*100. >>> (The latter condition means C has the largest total utility.)
...to which you correctly replied: > Still, I have the very strong feeling that that claim is not > part of your above mentioned paper and also it is not true. Obviously, I made a typical copy-and-paste error from an earlier post here. The correct condition under which SEC makes sure that C is elected in the above situation is instead the following: alpha > a and beta > b This means that all voters prefer C to the Random Ballot lottery. > All these don't make the proposals necessarily look bad in my > eyes. It looks promising wherever high-value compromises > exist, and it looks logical they often do. I think they do exist usually. In the described spatial model they do. Yours, Jobst ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info