<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
<font size="4">The way a lot of Condorcet enthusiasts see things
is that voters naturally have a sincere full ranking of the
candidates<br>
(or certainly those with any hope of making it in to the Smith
set), that we should assume that all those implied pairwise<br>
preferences are equally strong, or if not they are all
nonetheless equally important.<br>
<br>
<br>
And that "normally" if all the voters give these rankings there
will be a "sincere CW", but if the used method (that meets<br>
the Condorcet criterion) fails to elect this candidate due to
some of voters declining to give their full strict rankings
creating a<br>
top cycle which the method resolves by electing someone else
then there is some huge problem.<br>
<br>
<br>
I reject all that. I think a better way too start looking at
things is to assume that we have three factions of voters (each
with<br>
its own candidate) that strongly prefer their favourites to the
other two candidates who they consider to be about equally<br>
bad (and/or uninteresting) and so they are not inclined to do
anything except bullet vote (Later-no-Harm or not).<br>
<br>
<br>
That has two big advantages. One, that probably it is more
realistic. We are looking to replace FPP and most voters would<br>
probably be happy to continue voting for just one candidate.<br>
<br>
<br>
And two, with this model there can be no controversy as to who
should win. Every method has no choice other than to<br>
elect the candidate with the most votes.<br>
<br>
I think one mistake that Blake Cretney made quite a while ago
(stemming from the mind-set I described at the beginning)<br>
was to classify truncation as a variety of Burial strategy.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090613041320/http://condorcet.org/emr/defn.shtml">https://web.archive.org/web/20090613041320/http://condorcet.org/emr/defn.shtml</a><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="font-family: serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><font
size="5"><b>Definitions</b></font></p>
<p
style="font-family: serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><font
size="5"><a name="bullet voting"></a><b>bullet voting</b><br>
Reducing the number of alternatives you express a
preference for, or give some rating to. This is a type of<span> </span><a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090613041320/http://condorcet.org/emr/defn.shtml#burying">burying</a><span> </span>strategy.</font></p>
<p
style="font-family: serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><font
size="5"><a name="burying"></a><b>burying</b><br>
Insincerely ranking an alternative lower in the hope of
defeating it.<br>
</font> <font size="5"><b
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><br>
truncate</b><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;"></span><br
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
</font> <font size="5"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">To
insincerely leave unranked alternatives who will
therefore be counted as equal and lower than all ranked
alternatives. This is one type of burying strategy.</span></font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I think "burying" strategy should only refer to insincere
order-reversal down-ranking a candidate in the hope of making it
lose to a candidate<br>
the voter prefers.<br>
<br>
(BTW, it looks to me that the definition given of "bullet
voting" is missing after "Reducing" the phrase "to one".
Otherwise it seems to be <br>
the same ting as truncation.)<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">The voting method should be very happy to assume
that presumed (or imaginary) strict "preferences" that the voter
chooses not to<br>
express on the ballot for whatever reason (barring some
over-strong truncation or compromise incentives) simply don't
exist.<br>
<br>
On the other hand egregious failures of Later-no-Help should be
looked on as being "suspiciously convenient".<br>
<br>
I think it could be useful to have a version of Later-no-Help
that has been weakened enough for it to be compatible with
Condorcet.<br>
<br>
More later.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></p>
<br>
<p><font size="4"><br>
<br>
</font><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>