[EM] vulnerability to compromise?

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Tue May 16 11:44:13 PDT 2000

EM list--

Burying is a problem to the extent that
it can be gotten away with, if it can be used at all. The burying
strategy exists in all rank methods. Approval doesn't have burying
or any other kind of offensive strategy, but, as a tradeoff,
Approval requires some compromise strategy, whereas the best
rank methods practically get rid of need for compromise strategy.
That's true of all the BC complying methods, including
Tideman, DCD, & Schulze's method.

Compromise strategy is a problem to the extent that it's needed,
and the magnitude of the problem increases with the drasticness
of the compromise that's needed. Maybe we should speak of
drastic & nondrastic compromise, depending on whether preferences
are actually reversed. For me, the need for compromise strategy
is what it really comes down to, and so that's why the
BC complying method are my favorites, if I could choose the
method for public elections. I don't know if the BC complying
methods differ in their deterrence of or opportunity for burying,
or their need for compromise, but it would be interesting &
revealing if such a difference were demonstrated.

Of course it's been pointed out that, with both Schulze &
Tideman, it's sometimes possible to make A win instead of B
by insincerely ranking C over D.

Can that strategy elect the strategists' favorite with both

Mike Ossipoff

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list