Talk:Center squeeze: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (Cleaned up some indentation.) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 40:
:::: 3. Satisfying the traditional definition of candidate-later-no-harm (i.e. later preferences have no impact on the election, so there's no consensus-seeking).
::: --[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
:::: You could formalize the "elects C in every [[Left, Center, Right]] election" condition (e.g. for all positive x, y, z_1, z_2, v so that v = x+y+z_1+z_2, x+y > v/2, x < v/2, y < v/2, the method must elect C for the election "x: L>C>R, y: R>C>L, z_1: C>L>R, z_2: C>R>L"). But I don't think that would be very transparent a criterion.
:::: Ultimately, the problem is that center squeeze is loosely defined as "strong wing candidates mustn't exclude the candidate more voters are closer to". Its importance didn't come from theory, but from examples of methods failing it and producing intuitively wrong results. It's thus much harder to find an elegant theoretical phrasing of just what it means.
:::: LNHarm doesn't imply center squeeze, though: see for instance [[MMPO]]. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
| |||