<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'>
Kristofer:<br><br>MJ's defenders like to say that it takes a huge majority of strategizers to affect the election. Often repeated, never verified.<br><br>In my 1st posting about MJ, I showed how one strategizer could defeat one sincere voter. ...Or a strategizing faction can defeat<br>an equal-size sincere faction.<br><br>And if the election is at all close, even fewer strategizers could defeat sincere voters.<br><br>You said or implied that you wouldn't like Approval because, with it, you'd have to use the "frontrunners plus" strategy.<br><br>No one has to say "Who are the frontrunners?"<br><br>Surely you've heard here that there are many Approval strategies. Which one you use depends on what your information is.<br><br>We discussed them perhaps a month or so ago, at EM.<br><br>If it's a u/a election, then just approve all the acceptables and none of the unacceptables.<br><br>We discussed many non-u/a Approval strategies, too many to describe again in this reply.<br><br>If it's non-u/a, and you have no information, then just vote for all of the above-mean candidates.<br><br>Tell me what kind of information you have, and I'll suggest an Approval strategy.<br><br>You seem to think that with MJ you have no need for information, for voting optimally. Sincere ratings isn't optimal, in MJ<br>or RV.<br><br>Yes you could get away with it.<br><br>People often think that their method is better than Approval, and that supposed improvement over Approval is illusory.<br><br>In Laraki's & Balinski's poll, what were people voting on? <br><br>Maybe they didn't strategize because they were instructed to rate the candidates according to perceived merit. Having agreed<br>to do that, strategic voting would be dishonest, and would be perceived as violating the conditions of the experiment, spoiling the<br>experiment.<br><br>I make no promise to try to rate sincerely in an RV or MJ election.<br><br>Somewhere in your post you asked if the conditional methods were ranking methods rather than rating methods.<br><br>Yes, if you regard 3-slot methods as ranking methods too.<br><br>We speak of top, middle, and bottom ratings in 3-slot methods, but no one has to assign utility-numbers to candidates, and<br>so, for that reason, you might want to call the 3-slot methods ranking methods.<br><br>So yes, in that case, all of the conditional methods are ranking methods rather than rating methods, because no one<br>has to try to assign merit-proportional ratings to candidates.<br><br>But you know, the distinction between ratings and rankings blurs. With 3 rank positions, shall we call them 1st, 2nd and 3rd ranks, or shall we call<br>them A, B and C ratings?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>