On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:32:40PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: > Sam Hartman writes: > > For me though, even there, notice that we'd be choosing between options > > that the voters considered acceptable. > > Because of that, I am not bothered by the cycle. > > If the decision doesn't really matter but a non-FD option must be > chosen (like a hungry group picking a restaurant) then sure, whatever. > > But for something important, I think we *should* be bothered by a cycle. > > Let me give an example. Let's say we end up with ALPHA, BETA, and > GAMMA in a cycle: ALPHA>BETA, BETA>GAMMA, GAMMA>ALPHA. So we run our > resolution algorithm, and it picks ALPHA. Well that's nice. But note > that if we had not had BETA as an option on the ballot, then GAMMA > would have been the winner, without anyone changing their votes.
You might want to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives#Criticism_of_IIA > Not > only is that odd, but it means that it would be reasonable for a > die-hard ALPHA supporter, seeing that GAMMA is going to beat ALPHA, > would propose adding BETA to the ballot. This means that we are > vulnerable to strategic (rather than honest) behaviour throughout the > process, including in proposing ballot options. So that would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nomination If the option is similar to an existing option, it should not have an effect for the Schulze method we use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_clones_criterion No voting system is perfect. Kurt
