[EM] Strong FBC Can Be Satisfied By Ranked Methods! (sort of)

[Dave Ketchum]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:57:52 -0800 (PST) Alex Small wrote:

> Forest Simmons said:
> 
>>Alex, it seems to me that if only the first two ranks get points, then
>>in a close race among several candidates if your favorite isn't among
>>the top three contenders with near equal chances, you may want to give
>>the top to slots on your ballot to your preferred among the top three
>>contenders.
>>
> 
> 
> This is true in the case of imperfect information.  I should make the
> criterion a matter of hindsight:
> 
> A method gives incentives for favorite betrayal if there exist situations
> in which a voter prefers an outcome obtained by ranking another candidate
> over his favorite over any and all outcomes that would have been obtained
> by sincerely ranking his favorite in first place.
> 
Said another way, giving points to only the first two ranks:

      Is fine if I find it convenient to list my favorite first and 
least-of-evils second.
      Unreasonably favors whatever lemon I place second, if I have only 
one candidate to promote.
      Unreasonably works against least-of-evils if there are two 
candidates I like better and actually place least-of-evils below second.

To clarify:  Least-of-evils is the candidate I like best among those with 
an expectable chance of winning.  I WANT to get in on this decision while 
also listing my true favorites up front.

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
   Dave Ketchum    108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708    607-687-5026
              Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                    If you want peace, work for justice.

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em