[EM] Later-no-harm, "Earlier-no-harm"

[Kevin Venzke]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my last message.

It's possible to define (a possibly limited version of) later-no-harm
as: "Adding strict preferences among candidates otherwise ranked last,
should not hurt the result of the election from the perspective of
this ballot."

(By this definition, however, Approval passes, since approving an
additional candidate doesn't just involve adding strict preferences,
but also deleting others.)

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone suggest the obvious counterpart,
"earlier-no-harm:" "Adding strict preferences among candidates otherwise
ranked FIRST, (etc...)."

For example, if voting "A=B=C>D>E" gets me one of those first choices,
then voting "A>B>C>D>E" should not get D or E elected.

"Earlier-no-help" could also be defined.  If "A=B=C>D>E" elects D,
then "A>B>C>D>E" should not elect A.

What do you think?

Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr


___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com