Jump to content

Dominant mutual third set: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 9:
It can be proven that several other [[:Category:Condorcet-IRV hybrid methods|Condorcet-IRV hybrid methods]] pass dominant mutual third burial resistance. For example, with [[Benham's method]], since at least one member of the smallest DMT set is guaranteed to be one of the two final remaining candidates after eliminating the rest, there is no incentive for a voter who honestly prefers that DMT member over the other final remaining candidate to not vote that preference i.e. the same incentive for honest voting exists as if it was a [[runoff]]. This is one major reason cited by those who prefer Condorcet-IRV methods, as they claim that most elections feature a DMT set (i.e. perhaps because the voters are polarized into two sides, and with one side being majority-preferred to the other), and therefore these methods will be more [[Strategic voting|strategically resistant]] in practice than many others.
 
Any voting method that is "DMT-efficient" will be [[Smith-efficient]] whenSince the [[Smith set]] is a subset of the smallest DMT set., Allall [[Smith-efficient]] [[Condorcet methods]] are DMT-efficient. Smith does not necessarily imply dominant mutual third burial resistance, however; for instance, [[Schulze]] fails DMTBR.
 
== Notes ==
1,229

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.