3-2-1 voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq No edit summary |
imported>Homunq |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
This system satisfies the [[Majority criterion]]; the [[Condorcet Loser criterion]]; [[monotonicity]]; and [[local independence of irrelevant alternatives]]. |
This system satisfies the [[Majority criterion]]; the [[Condorcet Loser criterion]]; [[monotonicity]]; and [[local independence of irrelevant alternatives]]. |
||
Steps 1 and 3 satisfy the [[later no-harm |
Steps 1 and 3 satisfy the [[later no-harm criterion]], so that the only strategic reason not to add any "acceptable" ratings would be if your favorite was one of the two most-rejected semifinalists but also was able to beat the least-rejected semifinalist in step 3. This combination of weak and strong is unlikely to happen in real life, and even less likely to be predictable enough a priori to be a basis for strategy. |
||
== Examples == |
== Examples == |