[EM] vulnerability to compromise?

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

Steve wrote (11 May 2000):
> Markus wrote (10 May 2000):
> > It can be argued that -in the Schulze method- if some
> > voters uprank D ahead of A or downrank A behind D then
> > this means that candidate A becomes less popular and that
> > it is therefore legitimate when candidate A loses the
> > elections.
>
> That's a flawed argument. Candidate A is not really less 
> popular; it merely appears that way if one trusts the
> sincerity of the votes.

Mike wrote (12 May 2000):
> But (rhetorical question) if compromising means insincerely
> voting someone higher to make him win, then how could that be
> considered something that shouldn't work, or something that
> means that a method has a vulnerability fault if it works?
> If "vulnerability to compromise" means that, with a method,
> it can sometimes be necessary for a voter to insincerely vote
> someone higher in order to prevent the election of someone
> worse, then "vulnerability" seems the wrong word.

I have to agree with Mike.

It is understandable that if some voters rank a candidate
higher then this candidate might win ("compromising"). And
it is understandable that if some voters rank a candidate
lower then this candidate might lose ("burying").

Markus Schulze
schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de
schulze at math.tu-berlin.de
markusschulze at planet-interkom.de