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

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
> 
> As Jonathan Lundell noted, "burial is a simple, intuitive and
> attractive strategy that can be easily employed by relatively naive
> voters", and it therefore ought to be allowed so that voters can try
> to bury their least favorite mainstream candidate.
> 
> Burial ability is a good feature of voting systems, easily understood
> by most voters, not a feature to be avoided.
> 
> I'm glad we seem to agree that later-no-harm is not a good feature of
> a voting system because it prevents compromise.

Hmm. I think you missed my next sentence.

> Burial works against compromise by encouraging voters to rank the potential compromise candidate last.