Request for sincerity formulae and 2 sincerity numbers; SDSC

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Carey wrote-

Mike Ossipoff has been writing about reducing/minimizing the
"need for insincerity".

I request that the "need for insincerity" numbers be stated.
The moment they are defined, there could be a simple minimizing of
the need for insincerity quantities over all the finite number of
different sets of possible winners. Imaginably some highly
unsatisfactory preferential voting method would be found but I
guess that Mike Ossipoff can't estimate what the need for
insincerity is.

----
D- In the single winner case, the sincere/ insincere situation happens when 
there is (guess what)- a divided majority.

Polls before the election show *roughly* a *sincere* possible vote of 

26 ABC
25 BAC
49 C[A=B]

Some of the C voters may want to be insincere and rank A > B or B > A.

Some of the first choice A and B voters may then want to be insincere. Not so 
amazing.

I say so what. Majority rule is majority rule.

My standard mantra- an election method works on the votes cast (not added or 
removed votes -- unless some major felonies are being committed).

To get ONLY *sincere* votes would require something like lie detectors 
connected to the (now no longer secret) ballots.  No thanks.