Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Non-compulsory support criterion

Moved from Talk:Non-compulsory support criterion

IMO, this article shouldn't exist, as the criterion in question entirely obscure. --Hermitage 23:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Five Google hits, all Electowiki. 68.165.40.236 04:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This criterion sounds like later-no-help or like later-no-help plus mono-append. Markus Schulze 06:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I did pick up on Later-no-help (in my recent edit summary at Approval voting). I see Mono-append now that you mention it. I think it may be stronger, though. It says provides a means ... to exclude ... candidates from supportive ranking ..., not causing harm to any supported candidates or help to non-supported candidates. I can possibly read this to mean that it must not even change the winner from a non-supported candidate to another non-supported candidate. KVenzke 21:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the author of this article could provide some examples where FPP or IRV violates NCSC. Markus Schulze 06:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 *  Instant-runoff voting fails ncsc as if a candidate is not ranked, this can harm candidates who are supported by the voter by denying supported candidates transferred votes from the unranked candidate, thereby decreasing the winning chances of those candidates. 

This doesn't make sense. Suppose you vote A>B>C and do not vote for D or E. Suppose D or E wins. There is no scenario where changing your vote to A>B>C>D would cause A, B, or C to win, since D never possesses your vote unless A, B, and C are all eliminated. KVenzke 03:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, IRV does not satisfy the monotonicity criterion or the participation criterion, thus not supporting a candidate can increase that candidate's winning chances.

Hmm... This is only possible if you truncate out of order. For example, it is possible that changing A>B>C>D>E to A>B>C>E could cause D to win. But there is no way that changing A>B>C>D>E to A>B>C>D could cause E to win. KVenzke 03:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct.--Fahrenheit451 13:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I will look at this in greater detail. It appears that stv methods may satisfy ncsc.--Fahrenheit451 20:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of the outcome rather than the ballot. You are correct on the ballot.--Fahrenheit451 20:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Condorcet methods
Don't some Condorcet methods, like Schulze, satisfy this? &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This criterion seems to imply Later-no-help, which is incompatible with Condorcet.
 * I think that if Fahrenheit451 isn't going to develop this further, this article should be deleted. KVenzke 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Later-no-help
I suggest that this article should (1) be moved to Later-no-help criterion and be updated accordingly or (2) be deleted. Markus Schulze 20:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That depends. If later-no-help differs significantly from the current text, one might as well go for outright deletion and then start again properly. I don't even understand quite why FPTP violates this criterion. -- Dissident (Talk) 22:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)