Chicken dilemma: Difference between revisions

Line 30:

----

In the chicken dilemma scenario described in the premise of the Chicken Dilemma Criterion (CD) defined above, if B won, then the B voters would have successfully taken advantage of the A voters' co-operativeness. The A voters wanted to vote both A and B over the ~~candidates~~ disliked by both the A voters and B voters. Thereby they helped {A,B} against worse ~~candidates~~. But, with methods that fail CD, the message is "You help, you lose".

In the chicken dilemma scenario described in the premise of the Chicken Dilemma Criterion (CD), defined above, if B won, then the B voters would have successfully taken advantage of the A voters' co-operativeness. The A voters wanted to vote both A and B over the candidate disliked by both the A voters and B voters. Thereby they helped {A,B} against the worse candidate. But, with methods that fail CD, the message is "You help, you lose".

----

Line 37:

ICT, [[Symmetrical ICT]], [[MMPO]], MDDTR, [[IRV]], [[Benham's method]], [[Woodall's method]]

----

Because CD is so simple, such a simple situaton, could there be another

simple implmentation of it?

...maybe one that doesn't speak of numbers of voters in the factions?

CD is sufficient, as-is, but here is a non-numerical definition:

== CD2 ; ==

'''Supporting definition:'''

The A voters are the voters who vote A over everyone else. The B voters are

the voters who vote B over everone else. The C voters are the voters

who vote C over everyone else.

'''Premise:'''

1. There are 3 candidate: A, B, and C.

2. If the A voters and B voters all voted both A and B over C, then C

couldn't win.

3. The ballot set is such that if C withdrew from the election and the

count, A would win.

4. The A voters vote B over C.

5. The B voters don't vote A over anyone.

'''Requirement:'''

B doesn't win.

[end of CD2 definition]