[EM] Later-no-harm definition

Bart Ingles bartman at netgate.net
Tue Dec 23 23:57:01 PST 2003

This paper must be part of a series, as Woodall never explains his
assertion that "Of these three properties, Majority is far and away the
most important."  He seems to have his own definitions for monotonicity;
I hadn't seen these anywhere else.

But the publication appears to be devoted to issues surrounding STV, so
maybe some things are simply assumed here.


Chris Benham wrote:
> Quoting  D.R. Woodall,
> "Later-no-harm:  Adding a later preference to a ballot should not harm
> any candidate already listed".
> In other words, if  a method meets Later-no-harm then  voters can never
> get an advantage by truncating.
> It is met by IRV, but is incompatible with  Condorcet.
> I got this from what I found to be the very interesting and illuminating
> paper "Monotonicity and Single-Seat Election
> Rules" by Woodall, and uploaded by  Marcus Schulze:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/files/wood1996.pdf

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list