> > "Indeed, the three slot case does appear to satisfy the FBC as well." > > Isn't there a "not" missing from that sentence? >
Do you have an example? > The main "practical purpose" of the FBC as I see it is to assist in > marketing the method by giving > voters an absolute guarantee. > I sympathize, but I think that the FBC guarantee is even stronger than needed. My perspective is the following: 1. Most real-world elections will have a sincere CW, although that might not be visible from the ballots. 1a. Those elections without a sincere CW don't really have a "wrong answer", so I don't worry as much about the pathologies in that case. 2. Therefore, we can divide FBC-violating strategies into two (overlapping) classes: those which work when there is not a CW among the other voters, which I will call "offensive" strategies, and which usually work by creating a false cycle; and those which work when there is no CW among the other voters, which I will call "defensive". 3. I consider that a method with no "offensive" FBC violations is good enough. That's why I've used those labels: why would "defensive" strategies be a problem if "offensive" ones weren't? Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info