[EM] Why care about later-no-harm or prohibiting candidate burial?

[Kathy Dopp]

I can't help wondering why anyone would think it beneficial to have
either later-no-harm or burial prevention in a voting method. Here is
why:

1. later-no-harm prevents finding compromise candidates, and thus is
not a desirable feature of a voting method, and

2. if a voter tries to bury a candidate, then logically it can only be
(unless the voter is acting against his own interests) because he
would rather have any other candidate more than the candidate he tries
to bury.  Allowing a voter to express which candidate he would like
least is a good feature, not a bad one.  All the talk about a voter
preferring in truth a candidate 2nd and then burying that candidate
below other candidates he prefers less, and thus giving those other
candidates he prefers even less a better chance, well is simply
illogical drivel.

So why all the talk of trying to invent voting methods that have two
very bad traits - later-no-harm and disallowing burial?  I don't see
why anyone would want to spend the time trying to devise such a flawed
voting method as to prohibit finding compromise candidates that more
voters like and to prohibit a voter from ability to contribute to
preventing his least favorite choice from winning.

Kathy