[EM] Losing Votes (ERABW)
cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au
Mon Dec 17 11:12:14 PST 2012
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote (13 Dec 2012):
"The method should provide good results and/or strategy
resistance and then whether or not it pays attention to the top is
Which leads to marketing. Perhaps having the method elect most from the
tops is a marketing advantage. However, it may come at a cost of results
(or strategy resistance). In that case, what is better? Should one pick
a method for marketability and try to build upon it to go further later,
or try to make one leap instead of two?"
I agree with the first sentence above, but "good results" can be a bit subjective
and some people think that "paying attention to the top" is part of it.
When I wrote that my suggested version of Schulze (Losing Votes) has a feature
that might help with marketing, I wasn't admitting that anything in terms of "results
(or strategy resisatnce)" had been sacrificed for greater "marketability".
With regard to "strategy resistance" in Condorcet methods, it seems that we have
to choose between trying to reduce Compromise incentive for voters whose main
concern is to prevent the election of their Greater Evil and trying to reduce defection
incentive by voters trying to get their Favourite elected versus the "sincere CW".
The Losing Votes method I advocate goes for the latter.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods