<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><STRONG style="RIGHT: auto">Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote (13 Dec 2012):</STRONG><BR><BR>"The method should provide good results and/or strategy <BR>resistance and then whether or not it pays attention to the top is <BR>secondary.<BR><BR>Which leads to marketing. Perhaps having the method elect most from the <BR>tops is a marketing advantage. However, it may come at a cost of results <BR>(or strategy resistance). In that case, what is better? Should one pick <BR>a method for marketability and try to build upon it to go further later, <BR>or try to make one leap instead of two?"<BR><BR>I agree with the first sentence above, but "good results" can be a bit subjective<BR>and some people think that "paying attention to the top" is part of it.<BR style="RIGHT: auto"></div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto">When I wrote that my suggested version of Schulze (Losing Votes) has a feature<BR>that might help with marketing, I wasn't admitting that anything in terms of "results<BR>(or strategy resisatnce)" had been sacrificed for greater "marketability".<BR></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><BR style="RIGHT: auto"><VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR>With regard to "strategy resistance" in Condorcet methods, it seems that we have<BR>to choose between trying to reduce Compromise incentive for voters whose main<BR>concern is to prevent the election of their Greater Evil and trying to reduce defection<BR>incentive by voters trying to get their Favourite elected versus the "sincere CW".<BR><BR>The Losing Votes method I advocate goes for the latter.<BR><BR>Chris Benham</div></div></body></html>