[EM] Mike: strategy (brief)

[James Green-Armytage]

James G-A replying to Mike, on a few strategy-related issues...

Mike:
>
>For instance, I said, and contnue to say that emphasis on methods' 
>"vulnerability" to strategy completely misses the point.
>So does the treatment of what you call "burying strategy" as a separate 
>method problem from the strategy problems of Plurality and IRV.

	It is a separate problem if it succeeds. It may resemble existing
compromising problems more closely if other voters counteract it using a
compromising counterstrategy (a defensive strategy, in your terms).

Mike:
>
>Though this is obvious when you look at defensive strategy need,  it's
>also 
>otherwise clear that the kind of wrongs, the kind of violations, that can 
>result from what you call "burying strategy" in Condorcet wv will also 
>happen in Plurality and IRV, even without anyone doing what you call 
>"burying strategy" or any strategy at all.
>
>But you misidentify the result of what you call "burying strategy" as 
>something different and unique to Condorcet, you tell us that Condorcet
>adds 
>a new problem, a new fault.

	No, it's not unique to Condorcet methods. It's also present in Borda,
Bucklin, approval, and CR. Not in IRV, though. See Blake's page
http://condorcet.org/emr/methods.shtml

Mike:
>
>And, by the way, what do you call offensive truncation? "Compression"? If 
>you move Kerry up to 1st place with Nader, is that compression, or 
>compromising, or raising, or all of those?

	The compression/reversal distinction for strategy terms was an idea that
I introduced on 3/29/04.
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-March/012515.html
	If my sincere preferences were N>K>B and I voted N=K>B in order to
decrease Bush's chances of winning, that would be the
compromising-compression strategy. If I voted K>N>B, to achieve the same
end, that's the compromising-reversal strategy. Either way, it's a
compromising strategy. And yes, I would say that I would be raising Kerry
rather than lowering Nader, since my goal wouldn't be to decrease Nader's
chance of being elected (although I may accept this as a side effect of my
goal to decrease Bush's chances of being elected).
>
Sincerely,
James