[EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.

[Juho Laatu]

OK. I interpret this to mean that "sincerity"
referred to the sincere opinion that might
not even exist. And that this makes it a
difficult term to define (for all methods).
Or maybe it in this case would be just a
difficult term to use (not necessarily to
define).

For a voter that doesn't have a sincere
opinion it is also difficult to vote in any
way (not just sincerely). Maybe casting a
random ballot is the only option. (Uncertain
temporary opinion could still be classified
as a sincere although often changing opinion.)

(I used terms "my preferences" and "sincere
opinion" almost interchangeably but I don't
know if that was your approach too.)

Juho


--- On Wed, 21/1/09, Jobst Heitzig <heitzig-j at web.de> wrote:

> From: Jobst Heitzig <heitzig-j at web.de>
> Hi Juho!
> 
> > What is the problem with
> > sincerity in Plurality?
> 
> Well, that's simple: Any voter who does not have a
> unique favourite option (whether that is because of
> indifference or uncertainty or because of cyclic
> preferences) cannot vote "sincerely" in Plurality!
> 
> Yours, Jobst



.... and the older mail ...


--- On Fri, 16/1/09, Jobst Heitzig <heitzig-j at web.de> wrote:

> To determine how I should vote, is that quite complicated
> or does it depend on what I think how others will vote?
>
> Or is my optimal way of voting both sufficiently easy to
> determine from my preferences and independent of the other
> voters?
>
> If the latter is the case, the method deserves to be called
> "strategy-free". The whole thing has nothing to do
> with "sincerity". Refering to
> "sincerity", that concept in itself being
> difficult to define even for methods as simple as Plurality,
> complicates the strategy discussion unnecessarily.

Are you looking for the English language
meaning of sincerity or some technical
definition of it (e.g. some voting related
criterion)? What is the problem with
sincerity in Plurality?

Juho