On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 05:55:01PM -0400, Stephane Rouillon wrote: > Actually as many people will tell you, > this claim is wrong. > > I see that Rob already gave you a counter example. > > Maybe you would like to know that using winning vote as > criteria to make pairwise comparison instead of margins > can make your claim true for strong Condorcet winners > (ones which have a more than 50% majority against every > other candidate). Using margin as a criteria your claim is only valid > for stronger Condorcet winners (having a 2/3 majority against > every other candidate). > > Finally, no method is know to garantee the election of a weak > Condorcet winner against unsincere preferences. This > is understandable because absentees can always alter the balance > against the Condorcet winner and hope to unsincerely create > a cycle containing one of their better choice. > > Hope it helps, > Steph.
These claims are strong enough, but what I really need is a citation to a piece of published work that shows that at least the winning-vote version of immunity is true. Can anyone provide a pointer? Thanks, -- Andrew ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info