Jump to content

3-2-1 voting: Difference between revisions

imported>Homunq
No edit summary
imported>Homunq
Line 17:
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]] 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 ==
Anonymous user
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.