[EM] Poll, preliminary ballots

[Closed Limelike Curves]

>
> 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.

By "shift the winner to a different candidate", do you mean with or without
counterstrategy? e.g. lots of Condorcet methods meet Minimal Defense, but
are vulnerable to burial, so it's often necessary to truncate your ballot.
If voters often apply this truncation strategy to make sure sincere
Condorcet winners are protected from burial, is that bad? Is it less bad
than other kinds of strategy? Is what matters just how *often* a system is
vulnerable to strategy, or how much this affects the quality of winners?
Does "the strategic burden is minimal" involve just how often strategy is
used, or also the simplicity or sincerity of the strategy?

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.

In that case, would it be better to make the strategy very simple to work
out, so we don't have to rely on trusting party elites or experts' voting
recommendations (which could give political parties a lot of power)?


On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 11:41 AM Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods at votefair.org> wrote:

> 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)?
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240422/33f0eee7/attachment.htm>