Again, what you call ABE, I call chicken dilemma. And I believe that SODA resolves it, especially with the optional rule for that purpose<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/SODA#Finish_resolving_the_.22Chicken_Dilemma.22>. But even with that optional rule, SODA does not meet your criterion; in fact, it fails in at least two separate ways. (Candidates can truncate, and it works in some cases unless the C candidate(s) help(s) resolve it; voters can truncate, and it works, but is contrary to their laziness)
Jameson 2011/11/2 MIKE OSSIPOFF <[email protected]> > > First I proposed CD, then I said that it might be too demanding, and > _tentatively_ > suggested a replacement. It wasn't a good one. > > Here I suggest another replacement for CD: > > Tentative replacement for CD: > > Supporting definitions: > > "The A voters" are the voters to whom A is favorite. > "The B voters" are the voters to whom B is favorite. > > "The others" are the candidates other than A and B. > > A voter votes sincerely iff s/he doesn't falsify a preference or > fail to vote a preference that the voting system in use would have > allowed hir to vote in addition to those preferences that s/he actually > did vote. > > Premise: > > The A voters and the B voters are, together, a majority. > > They all prefer A and B to the others. > > Voting is sincere, except that the B voters refuse to vote A over anyone. > > A would win under sincere voting (in other words, had the B voters voted > sincerely > as did everyone else). > > Requirement: > > Either A wins, or A and B win (tie), or neither A nor B wins. > > [end of tentative CD definition] > > I know that I don't like what happens in the ABE. Maybe this replacement, > today, > is the way to describe ABE with a criterion. > > Mike Ossipoff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
