[EM] earlier-no-harm/help

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi,

--- En date de : Dim 20.2.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km-elmet at broadpark.no> a écrit :
> Quite some time ago, Kevin Venzke talked about criteria
> called "earlier-no-help" and "earlier-no-harm". If it turns
> out that having both LNHelp and LNHarm immunizes a method
> against burial, perhaps the same thing is the case for
> ENHelp and ENHarm with respect to compromising.

I seem to recall concluding they weren't very useful.

They were meant to be the complete reverse of the other criteria. So as
LNHarm says that peeling a candidate out from equal-last to be second-to-
last should not harm a candidate ranked higher, ENHarm would mean that
peeling a candidate out of equal-first (tied at the top) shouldn't help a
candidate ranked lower.

It's like going beyond FBC, to say you won't be harmed by introducing
strict rankings into your compressed top.

Note that DSC *does* satisfy earlier-no-harm: It's completely pointless
to vote candidates tied-at-the-top in DSC. Introducing a strict ranking
(even arbitrarily) can only help you.

Since DSC clearly has compromise incentive, I don't think ENHarm gets us
anywhere...

Kevin