More 0-info pairwise strategy

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

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

Mr. Ossipoff- 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.
----
D- Back to real politics land- there will be polls.

Any candidate with circa 30 plus percent of the votes in a poll will play the 
plurality politics game and try to get his/her devious voters not to make 
additional choices.  

The voters with candidates getting less than such circa 30 percent in a poll 
will obviously think- our/my first choice has NO chance of winning, we/I know 
about such devious candidate and his/her voters and therefore we/I must also 
play the plurality game and vote for the lesser of the plurality evils.

Real politics result- The Minnesota governor election in 1998. Ventura circa 
37 percent, Dem- circa 32 percent, Repub- circa 31 percent (or vice versa ?).

How much loss of freedom is there if a voter is required to rank perhaps at 
least 3 choices and vote YES/NO on each choice (default is NO) (to lessen the 
polls/plurality strategy game) ??

Since I am calling for a YES majority vote before the head to head results 
are even looked at, I am not sure if any of the 3 MN candidates would have 
been elected (default- the legislature fills the office).  Having a YES 
majority requirement will probably force additional choices to be made among 
those devious plurality candidates and their devious supporters.