[EM] new working paper: (edit/second thought)

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Kristofer,

Fairly short response here...

--- En date de : Dim 20.2.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km-elmet at broadpark.no> a écrit :
> But note that those voters can't make A win by truncating
> to a bullet vote. If they do so, A will have 23 votes which
> is not enough. That seems to support that there are two
> kinds of burial, the kind that makes use of LNHarm failure
> and the kind that makes use of LNHelp failure.
> 
> The LNHarm failure type burial exists if someone who votes
> A>B>C>D could make A win by merely truncating to a
> bullet vote. If the method passes LNHarm, then (I think) if
> it is the case that an A-only bullet vote makes A win, the
> voter can't make A lose by adding additional ranks.
> 
> The LNHelp failure type burial exists if A *doesn't* win
> when truncating, but burial makes A win. In this case,
> appending later ranks does help A win, which is a violation
> of LNHelp.

I think I am starting to see where you're coming from though I don't see
it that way myself. I see two types of burial:

1. Adding a new preference. Prevented by LNHelp.
2. Shuffling lower preferences. Prevented by having both LNHelp and 
LNHarm.

The third type, prevented by LNHarm, would be truncation. But I don't
normally view truncation as a form of burial. I can understand why one
might, but to me there are too many sincere or at least legitimate
reasons to truncate, to want to put it on the same level.

Kevin