It was pointed out that an example in which wv thwarts offensive strategy against the CW, could be interpreted differently, with a different candidate as CW. In those other interpretations, tha example is an example of a successful offensive-strategy against a CW. But, for someone whose favorite candidate might be CW, & who wants that CW protected against offensive-strategy, only one interpretation matters: the interpretation in which hir favorite is CW. wv protects your CW favorite against offensive strategy as described, as we discussed here & agreed, & as various criteria specify.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023, 2:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > It was pointed out that an example in which wv thwarts offensive strategy > against the CW, could be interpreted differently, with a different > candidate as CW. In those other interpretations, tha example is an example > of a successful offensive-strategy against a CW ... ... unprotected by defensive wv strategy ... which would have been sufficient to save it. Also, generally speaking, in these ambiguous cases, the candidate with the largest bottom count is the most likely burial victim. Our CT-Coombs burial resistant method takes advantage of that fact. > > But, for someone whose favorite candidate might be CW, & who wants that CW > protected against offensive-strategy, only one interpretation matters: the > interpretation in which hir favorite is CW. > > wv protects your CW favorite against offensive strategy as described, as > we discussed here & agreed, & as various criteria specify. > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >