[EM] SODA strategy

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/12/15 <fsimmons at pcc.edu>

> If voters think that SODA is complex, then it's because they have been
> exposed unnecessarily or
> prematurely to the niceties of strategy considerations.
>
> Let's take a lesson from IRV supporters.  They don't get anybody worried
> about IRV's monotonicity
> failure or FBC failure by bringing them up to unsophisticated voters.
>

In fact, they disingenuously use IRV's LNH compliance to claim that no
strategy is needed.

Is there some criterion we could use to more-honestly say that strategy is
practically-speaking irrelevant in SODA? Unfortunately, SODA does not meet
the letter of the SFC, which has the best name of any criterion. (Though
I'd argue that SODA meets the spirit of the SFC. It fails both because
non-delegated votes don't allow full preferences, and because large
clonesets can obscure a true CW and trip up the delegated-assignment order
algorithm. But both of these are technicalities in my opinion.)

For instance, the unique-FBC for 3 serious candidates is a guarantee that
it is safe to bullet vote (delegate). But if we're going to make a big deal
out of that criterion, it definitely needs a better name.


>
> We need to emphasize the simplicity of SODA voting to the public, and
> answer the strategy questions
> to the experts.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111215/4f8b79e8/attachment-0004.htm>