Does anyone understand why the DH3 concept exists? Why envision three major
blocs, instead of two major blocs plus the small bloc belonging
to the pawn candidate? That doesn't require four candidates and more closely
resembles how burial problems are usually considered...
Kevin
________________________________
De : Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]>
À : Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>
Cc : MIKE OSSIPOFF <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Envoyé le : Dimanche 19 février 2012 7h48
Objet : Re: [EM] Conditionality-by-top-count probably violates FBC
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>-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
, or James Green-Armytage's:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-February/027091.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
