Re: [EM] Kevin: My failure scenario was erroneous for ABucklin
Hi Jameson, De : Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com À : MIKE OSSIPOFF nkk...@hotmail.com Cc : election-meth...@electorama.com Envoyé le : Vendredi 2 mars 2012 13h13 Objet : Re: [EM] Kevin: My failure scenario was erroneous for ABucklin Also, since ABucklin is in all significant regards identical to MJ, Balinski and Laraki's proof that MJ meets FBC works verbatim for ABucklin. Jameson Did they use a special term for this property? We used to have an FBC page on Wikipedia, based on content from Russ' site I believe, but eventually this was removed since the notability is unclear. The big difference between ABucklin and MJ is that in the former, raising and lowering a candidate can alter the stage at which other candidates attain majority. It occurred to me that it could happen that if you change ABCDE to A=DBCE This could probably move the win from B to C or E. But then you could just top-rank B to prevent it. Kevin Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Kevin: My failure scenario was erroneous for ABucklin
Kevin: I've now realized that my FBC failure scenario works for Stepwise-to-Majority, but not for ABucklin. So: False alarm. Sorry about that. I myself hadn't fully studied the failure scenario, which is why I didn't, at first, realize that the failure scenario doesn't work for ABucklin. The argument that you stated, for why ABucklin won't fail FBC, sounds entirely convincing. Thanks for posting that argument, and for assisting with my question. Mike Ossipoff Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
