Descending Acquiescing Coalitions: Difference between revisions

Added EM example of DAC being less first preference-focused than DSC.
imported>Homunq
No edit summary
(Added EM example of DAC being less first preference-focused than DSC.)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 11:
== Properties ==
 
DAC satisfies the [[Plurality criterion]], the [[Mutual majority criterion|Majority criterion]], [[Monotonicity criterion|Mono-raise]], [[Mono-add-top criterion|Mono-add-top]], the [[Participation criterion]], the [[Later-no-help criterion]] and [[Independence of clone alternatives|Clone Independence]].
 
DAC fails the [[Condorcet criterion]], the [[Smith set|Smith criterion]] and the [[Later-no-harm criterion]]. It is (along with [[Descending Solid Coalitions|DSC]]) the most complicated method satisfying the [[Participation criterion]].
 
Like [[Descending Solid Coalitions]], DAC can be considered a [[Plurality voting|First-Preference Plurality]] variant that satisfies [[Independence of clone alternatives|Clone Independence]]. ItHowever, isits (alongcoalition withcounting [[Descendingrule Solidmakes it depart from Plurality more than Coalitions|DSC]]) thedoes. mostFor complicatedinstance, methodin satisfyingthis theexample [[Participationgiven criterion]].by Chris Benham:
 
{{ballots|46: A
44: B>C
10: C}}
 
DAC elects C, while Plurality and DSC elect A.
 
===Example===
Line 40 ⟶ 46:
 
[[Category:Single-winner voting methods]]
[[Category:Monotonic electoral systems]]
[[Category:Clone-independent electoral systems]]
1,196

edits