Anonymous user
Talk:Definite Majority Choice: Difference between revisions
→more criteria...
imported>Araucaria (→Strategic Vulnerability?: Second rebuttal (amended)) |
imported>James Green-Armytage |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 80:
33: B>D>>C
30: C>D>>B
So this example is somewhat artificial. More worrisome and possibly more common is whether a faction would ''deliberately'' induce a cycle in order to take advantage of a Condorcet completion scheme's elimination of either the weakest defeat in the cycle or the weakest candidate. In this case, [[Definite Majority Choice|DMC]] has a major ''advantage'' over [[Schulze method|Schulze(wv)]], because the strategic unpredictability of the approval cutoff makes such maneuvering riskier.
But even if such a situation arises, what could happen? A might have an incentive to inflate C's approval. B becomes lowest approved and is eliminated. If C's faction wants to prevent an A victory, they can elevate B's approval and A is eliminated, electing C. B's faction might object to both A and C's insincerity, but by avoiding insincere promotion of A, they effectively create a poison pill against A's tactic.
Line 86:
So the question in any campaign tactician's mind has to be, can I profit through a Mexican standoff? It is very risky. The best bet in that case is to avoid shooting and attempt to forge an ally.
--[[User:Araucaria|Araucaria]] 13:19, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)
== more criteria... ==
Have we established whether DMC passes monotonicity or clone independence? There are probably more criteria that can be listed on this page. --[[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 18:47, 22 Nov 2005 (PST)
| |||