On 5 Apr 2005 at 12:13 UTC-0700, Chris Benham wrote: > ASM is definitely equivalent to Approval Margins (AM) when there are > no more than three candidates in the top cycle, and at least very > similar when there are more. Two examples of AWP giving a different > result from AM have been posted recently. In both of them, AWP > elected the least approved candidate. Both were composed by James > G-A to advertise his method. This is his most recent: > > 26: B>>D>K > 22: B>>K>D > 19: D>K>>B > 6: D>>K>B > 22: K>D>>B > 5: K>>B>D > > B>D>K>B > Approvals: B48, D47, K46. AM/ASM elect B. > > Chris Benham
And DMC also elects B. Yes, AWP shows a decisive victory for Kerry: AWP: 48 B>D 46 K>B 6 D>K The D>K defeat is dropped, and B's burial of K to produce a cycle backfires. But I still think is trumped up. This one relies on the 5 "K>>B>D" votes to produce the B>D part of the cycle. B voters are more likely to truncate than bury, if the effect would be to elect D. I think a far more likely scenario is 48: B 19: D>K>>B 6: D>>K>B 22: K>D>>B 5: K And even if somehow the B voters could second-guess the D and K voters and arrange for that perfect strategic split, you're talking about differences of 2%. That is smaller than any poll margin of error. Still too risky. Ted -- araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info