[email protected] wrote:
Suppose that we have a method that satisfies independence form covered alternatives, and that gives
greater winning probability to alternative B in this scenario
40 B>C>A
30 C>A>B
30 A>B>C
than in this scenario
40 D>B>C
30 B>C>D
30 C>D>B
as any decent method would.
Could one make a deliberately perverse method that would return bad
results but would technically pass both independence from covered
alternatives and monotonicity, or is it possible to make an absolute
incompatibility proof?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
