[EM] Mike: strategy terms

[James Green-Armytage]

Hi Mike, 
	Here's part II of my reply, on the topic of strategy terms:

>	My definition of "burying" is a slightly modified version of Blake
>Cretney's definition. Quoting from my paper:
>	"Insincerely ranking an option lower in order to increase the probability
>that a more-preferred option will win.
>
>I reply:
>
>Ok, just wondered. That could be done offensively or as a deterrent to 
>offensive
>strategy, and I make that distinction. But I don't criticize those who 
>don't.

	Okay. And I'm not trying to imply that your strategy definitions are not
useful. I can see how they are useful. I just think that there is some
merit in grounding strategy discussions in terms that have relatively
simple definitions, e.g. burying, compromising, push-over (Blake's terms).
Your strategic analysis centers on what strategy voters should use to
promote the election of the candidate whom they regard to be the sincere
CW. This is a useful topic, but I think it's important to get a grounding
in the basics first, and perhaps to start from a place that doesn't
presuppose the normativeness of a particular algorithm. That is, you start
with definitions that seem to be somewhat "loaded", rather than starting
somewhere a bit more flexible.
>
>So compromising could be order-reversal or equal ranking. I make that 
>distinction, but I
>don't say that everyone should.

	I agree that this distinction is often important. At one point I
suggested that the distinction be made by the use of the terms
compromising-reversal and compromising-compression. Likewise, I proposed
the terms "burying-reversal" and "burying-compression". (3/29/04) When I
just say "compromising", I mean it could be either via compression or
reversal. 
	By the way, what is your term for compromising-compression? "Favorite
betrayal" is roughly equivalent to "compromising-reversal", right?
>
>Of course, but how is that an awkward way to look at things? Who says that
>strategy must be based on perfect, complete, and reliable informaiton?

	Maybe not an awkward way to look at things. Perhaps just not the most
"basic" way to look at things. I think that it's helpful to define basic
terms like burying and compromising first, and then to work from there
towards terms that include information about whether a voter believed that
a candidate they were trying to help was the sincere CW.

end of part II

my best,
James
http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/voting.htm