In James' co-operation/defection example that he recently posted to show that problem in 1-balloting unenhanced wv, the B voters could steal the election from CW A by truncation or by order-reversal.
But with RMDD, only order-reversal could do it. If the B voters merely truncate, the sincere voting of the A voters gives C a majority defeat, disqualiflying C, and making an AB tie. Since the CW pairwise beats B, the CW wins the wv tiebreaker.
By the way, someone miglht object that RMDD doesn't foil order-reversal in that example, since I offered RMDD as an order-reversal solution. But all I said was that RMDD meets SSSC. If the B voters steal the election and elect B by defection, that election of B isn't a majority rule violation. I already pointed that out, to tell why that result isn't as bad as James implies that it is. That's why RMDD lets it happen. RMDD is for protecting voted majority wishes and meeting SSSC.
Mike Ossipoff
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win $1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
