Continuing the discussion from Different reweighting for RRV and the concept of Vote Unitarity:
In this example:
with this modification:
Droop Quota-spending PR methods would require Vote Management for Party B to maximize their guaranteed seat share.
But with Asset, it’s clearly possible to avoid that, since the candidates themselves can do the Vote Management for the voters. So in what scenarios is it necessary to do Vote Management in Asset to get a better result?
I’d guess that examples where Schulze STV or CPO-STV incentivize Hylland free-riding might be the ones best suited to show vulnerability to Hylland free riding in Asset as well, because Asset is, under certain conditions, Smith-efficient based on negotiator preferences, and those methods generally are Smith-efficient based on voter preferences.