More standards

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Cretney wrote in part-

Definition of Sincere Voting

There should be some standard that makes sure a method
matches what we consider a definition of a sincere vote.  For example,
some people advocate Approval and define a sincere vote to mean absolute
approval.  Others only think it means relative approval.  There should
be some standard to decide who is right.

4.  Sincere vote matches tabulation
The best way of judging this I can think of is to ask, "is a sincere
vote a rational vote assuming no knowledge of how others are voting."
Of course, the "assuming no knowledge" part is necessary because
every method can have strategic situations with such knowledge.  But
since a rational voter votes in a way that best helps his or her
candidates based on the method of tabulation, this standard implies
a strong connection between the definition of the sincere vote and
the method of tabulation.
---
D- Things are getting bizarre.  YES/NO is absolute.  Number voting ONLY shows
relative support.
Polls and the election method will cause some insincere voting- especially by
a minority who can either sincerely truncate or insincerely vote for 1 or more
compromise lesser of evils (in their minds) (with the latter happening big
time with Plurality).    So what ?  The election method must operate on how
the voters actually vote.  Any continuous feedback loop of what ifs ends on
election day-- If poll A, then strategy B, if poll B, then strategy C, etc.