[EM] vulnerability to compromise?

Steve Eppley SEppley at alumni.caltech.edu
Sat May 13 09:30:40 PDT 2000

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 

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)

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list