Dave Ketchum wrote:
This is more detailed work, depending on precise knowledge.
Also gets tricky since many changes affect more than one pair of
candidates.
For a simple example where helping A in A vs B, without disturbing their
relationship to other candidates, will help C (could be hoping to cause
A to be bigger than B in their pair; could be simply to change the
magnitude of their difference).
Tell those who would do A=B or B>A, to vote A>B. This will affect
A vs B without affecting any other pair of candidates.
Note that adding one or both of these, or giving them adjacent ranks
when they had not had this, requires more complex analysis.
This was intended to be in the context of, for instance, later-no-help
or mono-raise. These relative criteria are defined as "x should not be
helped/harmed when...". Therefore I don't have the privilege of telling
voters to, for instance, vote A>B instead of A=B - the simulator just,
(in the case of mono-raise) raises a random candidate and checks if that
harms him, or lowers a random candidate and checks if that helps him.
The hard part is to define "help" and "harm" when either or both of the
outcomes have ties in the social ordering.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
