[EM] LaterNoHelp

Forest Simmons forest.simmons21 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 13:25:00 PDT 2022

Kristofer, thanks for the further clarifications!

It just came to me why IRV's claim of FBC compliance is so ironical: strong
FBC is their most vaunted claim and it is false. And though their lesser
claim of Later No Help is true, the truth of the lesser claim is at the
very heart of why the more vaunted claim is false!

On top of that they disparage Condorcet's good faith effort to approach the
humble (non-strong) FBC, because it necessarily increases burial risk, a
necessity that Condorcet advocates humbly acknowledge, but IRV advocates
deny, whether disingenuously or unwittingly.

Let's give the vast majority (but not the most crafty and willful minority)
of them the benefit of a doubt on that score!


El jue., 2 de jun. de 2022 11:45 a. m., Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km_elmet at t-online.de> escribió:

> On 02.06.2022 19:35, Forest Simmons wrote:
> > LNhelp is a double edged sword. If lower ranked votes cannot help your
> > opponent, they cannot be counted on to help you either. Yet one of the
> > biggest talking point claims of IRV advocates is that it satisfies
> > Reliable Later Help: "If your first place choice is eliminated, then
> > your second place choice will still be there."
> LNHarm + LNHelp is just burial immunity. Like Plurality :-)
> The FBC is what makes it safe to always vote your sincere favorite
> (co-equal) at top... which is more about compromising.
> So if the IRV advocates suggest that LNH implies you can vote your
> sincere favorite top, then they're doubly wrong!
> In another post, Kevin Venzke mentioned that he found some Condorcet
> methods to be considerably more susceptible to compromise than others.
> My impression was that since some Condorcet methods are *almost* FBC
> compliant, and that it's possible to make them completely FBC compliant
> at the cost of losing Condorcet compliance (e.g. Minmax and MMPO),
> Condorcet methods as a whole were pretty close to FBC in some sense, in
> that they generally aren't susceptible to compromise strategy. James
> Green-Armytage's results also suggest this, as the Condorcet methods he
> investigated all had relatively low compromise incentive.
> But apparently it's not that simple, as Kevin's results indicate!
> -km
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220602/324ab69a/attachment.html>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list