[EM] A few comments on strategy matters

[Michael Ossipoff]

How can a method be called “monotonic” if adding a ballot that votes X over
y can change the winner from X to y ???

Another reason to prefer Approval & Score.

What’s the difference between changing a ballot & adding one? Well, one is
legal & one isn’t, & happens whenever another person enters the
polling-place.
——-
I define “Foolproof” as “ meeting FBC”.

For voting purposes, I define a “sucker” as someone who’d vote a
“lesser-evil”, someone he despises, over his favorite.

With a foolproof method, the worst that a sucker can do is cancel himself
out, with respect to his despised & not-despised candidates. Then he won’t
come into full-flower as the sucker that he is.
———
A method that isn’t foolproof is “sucker-vulnerable”.
———-
Condorcet & Hare are sucker-vulnerable.

But there’s still hope that they’ll work, because they’d be enacted by
Progressives, who aren’t doing so because they want to bury their favorite
under someone that they despise…but rather because they *don’t* want to.
——
James Green-Armatage described some Smith-&-Hare hybrids, & said that they
seem particularly strategy-resistant.

I haven’t examined them for the strategic-properties that I value, but it
might well be that they do very well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240207/c99d1f81/attachment.htm>