<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Jameson--<br><br>You said that suckers are more easily taken advantage of in the methods that I propose (Approval, Approval with conditional voting options, and <br>MTAOC and MCAOC, and maybe ABucklin with the kinds of conditionality that I've proposed).<br><br>For one thing, I don't propose sucker-voting with any voting system. For another thing, how would you take advantage of a sucker in AOC,<br>MMT, GMAT, MTAOC or MCAOC?<br><br>I suppose that, in the ABE, you could say that an A voter who doesn't make his help for B conditional is a sucker. You could take advantage of him.<br><br>But I don't advocate sucker-voting.<br><br>If you want to say that those methods have a strategy problem, then you need to say what strategy problem you think it has. Then you need<br>to tell why you think so.<br><br>Alternative IC rule?<br><br>Would it be as good, or sometimes better, to say that x is not beaten by y if the number of ballots ranking y over x is not greater than the<br>number ranking x over y plus the number ranking x and y equal-top; and that x wins if no one beats hir?<br><br>It seems to me that, most likely, ICT's main problem is innocent truncation. Non-strategically-intended truncation. One advantage that I always<br>pointed out for wv Condorcet was that it does a good job of avoiding that particular problem. So maybe Improved Condorcet, completed in a wv<br>sort of way, with one of the conditionality-by-mutuality systems that I've proposed, would be better than ICT for that reason. That would be<br>my reason for chooseing Improved-Condorcet-Winning-votes-Optional-Conditional (ICWOC) instead of ICT.<br><br>Conditionality of the type used in MMT or GMAT could perhaps be used instead, in which case I'd call the method ICWC, because, with those<br>kinds of conditionality, the conditionality isn't optional.<br><br>As you know, changes or procedures that get rid of a problem tend to bring with them a different problem. Conditionality doesn't seem to do that.<br>It avoids problems, without bringing one.<br><br>I said that I wouldn't propose ABucklin or its conditional versions because AERLO is needed to alleviate its strategic uncertainty. But, though they wouldn't<br>get rid of that problem, the conditionalities that I've proposed would do much to alleviate it. So maybe conditional ABucklin would be a good method,<br>a good way to get the greater expressivity of unlimited ranking. I've told here how ABucklin could be used with MTAOC style conditionality, in which<br>case I'd call it AOCBucklin. It could also be used with MMT or GMAT condititionality, in which case I'd call it ACBucklin, because the conditionality wouldn't<br>be optional.<br><br>With MTAOC style conditionality, not only is the conditionality optional, but it's optional by candidate. That's the kind of conditionality that I'd most<br>likely propose.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br> </div></body>
</html>