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

[Dave Ketchum]

HOORAY for thinking!  Too rare around here!

Dave Ketchum

On Feb 21, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:

> 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