<html><head></head><body>I Like IRVing wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:v01520d01630bd32b6191@%5B64.79.81.251%5D"><pre wrap=""> Under Approval, Bucklin, and Condorcet, voters of the largest<br>factions should only make one choice.</pre>
</blockquote>
What does Don mean here? I can think of three possible interpretations of<br>
the word "should" in this context:<br>
<br>
1. Don believes that voters should vote this way because it is to their strategic<br>
advantage to do so. If so, he does not understand Approval voting strategy<br>
well enough to be qualified to comment on it. In Approval, a voter should<br>
include all the candidates who have positive strategic value to that voter.<br>
That holds true whether or not your favorite is a front runner.<br>
2. Don does know about Approval strategy and is simply being disingenuous.<br>
3. Don is a would-be dictator who wants to tell voters how they should vote:<br>
"You should do this because I say so".<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:v01520d01630bd32b6191@%5B64.79.81.251%5D"><pre wrap=""> Under Borda, voters of the largest factions would need to make two<br>choices, if the Borda method is using the Borda Rule as follows:<br><br>Borda Rule: "Each voter ranks the candidates in order, and each candidate<br>is awarded a number of votes (from that voter) equal to the number of other<br>candidates ranked below him: the candidate receiving the greatest total<br>number of votes wins the election."</pre>
</blockquote>
Why vote for more than one in this case? If you vote for one only, you rank N-1<br>
candidates below you and thus give the maximum number of points (N-1) to<br>
your favorite. If you vote for a second, you give your second choice N-2 points.<br>
You should certainly do so if you get some strategic value in doing so, but Don's<br>
rule just doesn't capture Borda strategy either.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:v01520d01630bd32b6191@%5B64.79.81.251%5D"><pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
</body></html>