Hi,
________________________________ De : Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> À : Kevin Venzke <[email protected]> Cc : election-methods <[email protected]> Envoyé le : Dimanche 19 février 2012 15h28 Objet : Re: [EM] Conditionality-by-top-count probably violates FBC On 02/19/2012 09:37 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote: > 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... If there are just two blocs, then the DH3 scenario never gets off the ground. Say you have a nobody, Z, and two viable candidates (A and B). Then say the honest ballots are something like: 53: A > B > Z 46: B > A > Z 1: Z > A = B Then the B-supporters can't get the ball rolling, at least not in Condorcet, by burying A. Even if they do so, A will win by first preferences alone. Technically speaking, it takes three viables to make a cycle, and you need cycle-making/turning strategy to make DH3 work in Condorcet. In Borda, you could do a sort of DH3 with only two blocs, but that's because Borda doesn't satisfy Majority. Yes, I don't understand why it would be viewed this way. I.e. why would one assume that "two major blocs" means one bloc is a majority. I think a "pawn" could have 10% or even more of the votes. It's as though one wants to be sure to be able to say that absolutely nobody likes the pawn. I think that if DH3 could ever actually happen it would be better news than bad, just because it would mean we are able to have three blocs like that! Kevin
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
