Strategy-free criterion: Difference between revisions
→Commentary: clean up (AWB)
imported>RobLa m (Reverted edits by 68.91.252.155 (Talk) to last revision by 222.154.136.65) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Commentary: clean up (AWB)) |
||
Line 22:
The reader may be wondering how the Condorcet candidate, if one exists, could
possibly
other candidate. The key is that some voters may have no preference
between a given pair of candidates. Out of 100 voters, for example, 45
Line 32:
In order to understand SFC, one must also understand that there are
two types of insincere votes: false preferences and truncated
preferences. Voters
before their true preferences are fully specified (note that the last
choice is always implied, so leaving it out is not considered
truncation). Voters
hand, by reversing the order of their true preferences or by specifying
a preference they don't really have. Suppose, for example, that a
Line 49:
candidate to win by truncating their preferences. (In theory, that
minority could cause the other candidate to win by falsifying their
preferences, but that would be a very risky
that is more likely to backfire than to succeed.) The significance of
the SFC guarantee is that the majority has no need for defensive
| |||