[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Paul Kislanko wrote:
The original question was how to define the word "spoiler", and I've come to
the conclusion that it cannot be used at all without some qualification. An
"IRV-spoiler" might be a clone or it might be an IA, and it can be one
without being both.
A "spoiler" is the guy we don't like. The guy we blame for our candidate not winning when we skip over blaming our candidate for not winning. A "spoiler" violates the principle of "should have been".
The only definition of "spoiler" I can think of at the moment who is not an irrelevant alternative (in terms of adding or removing) is a candidate whose removal doesn't affect the outcome, but for whom being moved up or down in the rankings does affect the outcome. But for all I know that does reasonably constitute an IIA failure, at least by the literal definition.
Bart
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
