2012/2/19 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> > On 02/15/2012 06:08 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> But conditionality-by-mutuality violates later-no-help, and as such, >> raises the spectre of a DH3 >> <http://wiki.electorama.com/**wiki/DH3<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/DH3> >> >-like >> scenario. >> > > I think you can have burial in methods that pass LNHelp too, unless the > method also passes LNHarm. LNHelp-complying methods could still reward a > move from, say, A>B>C to A>C>B (where the point would be to keep B from > winning more than to get A to win). > > See, for instance, Kevin Venzke's post: http://lists.electorama.com/** > pipermail/election-methods-**electorama.com/2011-February/**027098.html<http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-February/027098.html>, > or James Green-Armytage's: > http://lists.electorama.com/**pipermail/election-methods-** > electorama.com/2011-February/**027091.html<http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-February/027091.html> > > I thought that for a LNHelp method, going from A>B>C to A>B=C would be sufficient, wouldn't it?
Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
