[EM] vulnerability to compromise?

[Steve Eppley]

Markus S wrote:
> 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").

I agree with Mike too.  Mike's statement and mine are not 
contradictory.  

And Mike's statement does not support Markus' argument shown at 
the top of this message.  The voters manipulating Markus' Feb 3 
2000 example, if the Schulze method were employed, would be 
electing their favorite, not a compromise.


---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)