[EM] Poll, preliminary ballots

[Richard, the VoteFair guy]

Regarding "strategic burden," the goal should be for the (single-winner) 
election method to yield a result that best represents the voters, 
without any voters or organizations being able to use ballot-marking 
tactics that shift the winner to a different candidate.

Whether or not it's easy or hard to figure out the best tactic is not 
significant.  That's because it only takes one expert to figure out the 
best tactic and that tactic can be widely promoted.

As a simple example, apparently a few election strategists told some 
Republicans to give money to Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary 
election to block Clinton from reaching that general election.

Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy


On 4/21/2024 10:00 AM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
> In that case, since every system needs to have some strategic burden, is 
> the goal to minimize the total amount of effort spent on strategy? To 
> minimize the probability that strategic voting by a coalition could 
> affect the result? To minimize the effects of strategy on the results?
> 
> Say a system makes it easy for any voter to work out the optimal 
> strategy, without needing a PhD in game theory, or relying on 
> party-recommendations (like in Australia). Is that good (makes strategy 
> more democratic, reduces the amount of effort spent on strategizing) or 
> bad (makes strategic voting easier)?