[EM] To Blake, re: strategy

[Blake Cretney]

   MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

 > I reply:
 >
 > Well, I've said that one thing that I don't like about IRV is that
 > its mathematical strategy is exceptionally difficult, requiring
 > estimate of many probabilities. Difficulty doesn't mean that people
 > won't try to guess, of course. Insincere voting is common in
 > public IRV elections. The fact that it may be erroneous strategy
 > doesn't seem to make it any better. People are dumping their
 > favorites, which I don't like, however un-understandable the
 > strategy is.

I wonder if anyone can find a newspaper or magazine article or editorial
that hints at some awareness of strategy in IRV.  I doubt it, although
I've been wrong before.  Note that parties sometimes have how-to-votes
that demonstrate vote trading, or an attempt to avoid strong opponents
in the legislature.  But that's a different issue.

 >
 > You said that you hope that FBC won't continue to be
 > used, presumabley because you prefer the unattainable Strong FBC.

I don't understand why you're doing this presuming.  I thought I was
fairly clear.  Voters don't seem to like voting candidates above their
favourites, but nor do they like voting candidates equal to their
favourites.  Methods that pass FBC have none of the former, but a lot of
the latter.  On average, in the proposed FBC methods, I should rate half
the candidates as equal to my favourite, unless the candidates are
skewed bad or good.  So, FBC is at best a mixed blessing.

---
Blake Cretney