On 27.5.2012, at 2.23, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > :-) What did I just say, Juho? I said that what I said is true of all > Condorcet versions.
Ok. The strategy (of ranking the most winnable acceptable candidate alone at top if there are winnable unacceptable candidates) is suposed to be valid for all Condorcet methods. > I meant what I said. I said that I was referring to all Condorcet versions. > And I said that every FBC-failing method, including Condorcet, will give > incentive for favorite-burial. Only to you would it be necessary to say > that. And for other FBC-failing methods too. I hope you are still talking about practical recommended strategies in real life elections and not just about theoretical vulnerabilities. (I gave the modified Approval example in my previous mail to point out that in some FBC-failing methods the strategy has quite slim chances of improving the outcome, and slim chances of not lowering the expected outcome.) > Juho says: > > The "all-important to you that you maximally help the Democrat against the > Republican" condition seems to say that the Democrat is the most liked and > the Republican is the least liked candidate > > [endquote] > > You see, this is what I mean by "waste of time". Feeling a need to > maximally help Democrat against Republican, because of a belief that only > the Dem can beat the Repub, and that no one better than the Dem can win, > does NOT mean that you like the Dem best. We haven't gotten anywhere in this > discussion, have we. Ok. It is just unclear to me what "all-important to you" exactly means. Since you may have even stonger interest to make your top favourite (that is not the Democrat) to win the Republican, term "all-important to you" can not mean that this would be "most important thing to you" but just "among the important things to you". Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
