Might this be getting too deep?
A cycle is a near tie among at least 3 candidates, together with second
choices linking the members together (even with near ties, second choices
can be incompatible with cycles).
Plotters might, assuming they have accurate prediction plus control of
enough voters:
Starting near a cycle, cause one.
Starting with a cycle, change the winner.
Starting with a cycle, cancel its existence.
Starting with a near tie among two candidates, change winner without
being able to, or wanting to, cause a cycle.
If you are far from the above, plotting becomes impractical.
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:15:43 -0400 Andrew Myers wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 12:58:05PM +0300, Juho Laatu wrote:
Hi All,
What would you say about the truth value of a one step more modest
claim "Condorcet methods are immune to strategic voting when there is
no top level loop and modified votes do not generate one"?
BR, Juho
Thanks to Rob and Juho for correcting me. I would like to have a statement
about strategic immunity that doesn't rely on people judging the difficulty of
creating a top cycle. Presumably creating a top cycle would require a number
of (effectively coordinated) insincere votes that is greater than half the
margin of the weakest sincere preference for the CW?
Is there any stronger statement that can be made for strategic immunity
of specific completion methods, ideally ones that satisfy the summability
criterion?
Best,
-- Andrew
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
