Jobst, You and Marcus are (often) very quick responders! Unfortunately "Democratic Fair Choice" incorporates more than one feature to which I'm allergic. As I put it in a previous post:
I am strongly of the view that as far as possible, the result of the election should be determined purely by the voters, who are nominally (or "in theory") voting sincerely. Therefore I'm opposed to explicit strategy devices, "candidate withdrawal options", candidate proxy, and reliance (before-absolutely-unavoidable)on random devices. "'When there are three candidates in the top cycle, AM has the property that the candidate with the lowest voted approval score can't win'. But that's also true for DMC and DFC since that candidate is always strongly defeated." Yes, but it isn't true of Approval-Weighted Pairwise (AWP), which my post was mainly aimed at. "' Doesn't Approval Margins fill the bill? Welcome to the AM fan club!' I don't know... Which cycle resolution technique does AM use? The claim that the winner belongs to P seems to hold at least when you use an immune cycle resolution technique like that of Beatpath, RP, or River..." Like James G-A, I have no strong preference between those three. In practice in public political questions, I think more than three candidates in the top cycle would be very very rare. Chris Benham > > > > > > > > > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info