[EM] MOP-F2 / Later-no-Help

[Juho Laatu]

> On 08 Jul 2019, at 17:36, C.Benham <cbenham at adam.com.au> wrote:

>> Margins provide good results with sincere votes, so why not use margins...
> I don't see how egregious failures of the Plurality  and Later-no-Help (and even Non-Drastic Defense) criteria constitute "good results"
> irrespective of whether the votes are "sincere" or not.

Later-no-Help is not one of my favourites either. I would have some sympathy towards "Later-yes-Help". That is because Later-no-Help seems to tell the voters that it is ok to truncate and not give their sincere rankings, while "Later-yes-Help" says that voters would be better off if they would tell the method all their preferences.

On the other hand, it would be good if voters are not punished too much if they truncate in an election with hundreds of candidates. Truncation of candidates that have no chances to win should be harmless. This means that a "Later-Irrelevant-Alternatives-no-Help" could be a better criterion than Later-no-Help. I would at least strongly encourage voters to rank all (hopefully not too many) potential winners (except the last one, whose position can be made clear already by ranking all the others).