[EM] LNHarm and ATLO

[Kevin Venzke]

Mike,

--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> wrote:
> We've been hearing a lot about wv not meeting LNH (Later No Harm). As I've 
> many times pointed out on EM, the way that IRV protects your favorite from 
> being harmed by votes for your lower choices is, by elimnating your favorite 
> before it lets you help anyone else. I call that electoral euthanasia.

Of course, I'm not advocating an elimination method.

> But LNH does have one use: It's one way of avoiding James' 
> co-operation/defection dilemma. But that problem can also be well dealt-with 
> via ATLO, and so there's no justification for giving up what needs to be 
> given up in order to get LNH, as a way of avoiding the 
> co-operation/defection dilemma.

Really? Can ATLO make it so that given the following sincere preferences, the
B>C faction has no incentive to bullet vote?

49 A
24 B>C
27 C>B

Under WV, the B>C voters can get B elected if they vote only for B, whereas
they give the election to C if they give C a ranking.

My conclusion is that there is no way to satisfy SDSC and address the
defection problem without electing C at least as often as B on the following
ballots:

49 A
24 B
27 C>B

Kevin Venzke



	

	
		
__________________________________________________________________
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/