More 0-info pairwise strategy

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Demorep said:

>Mr. Ossipoff wrote--
>
>Remember that only 2 things can keep a sincere CW from winning
>in a pairwise method: Truncation or falsification of preferences.
>---
>D- Perhaps there should be a required minimum number of rankings to avoid 
>the
>truncation problem (and other problems) (possibly based a percentage of the
>number of choices and/or an absolute minimum of choices- 3, 4, etc.).

Did I say that Condorcet had a truncation problem? There might be
20 or more candidates. It's unreasonable to tell someone that they
can't be counted unless they rank 19 of them. That would favor
the voter who has nothing else to do.

Besides, in an espcially devious electorate, truncation could
be used as a deterrent against devious offensive strategy.

In any case, it seems undemocratic to tell the voter how many
candidates he has to vote for.

How to avoid a truncation problem? Use Condorcet instead of Margins.

>
>If everybody truncates, then the result is obviously plurality.
>

Then don't truncate unless you want to. It wouldn't be like Plurality
unless everyone truncated to the extent of only listing one choice.

If everyone wanted to do that for some reason, that's their choice.
The method doesn't strategically require them to. There's no need
to force people to rank more candidates than they want to.

The idea of rank balloting is to be able to rank as many as you
want to, not to be forced by the rules to rank some required number.
Voter freedom is an important standard.

Mike Ossipoff



























______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com