<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">[/quote]<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">Yes, that’s the definition of
Vote-For-1
(VF1).<span> </span>The thing is, however, that some
of us don’t like VF1.<br>
…</span></blockquote>
<br>
In the model (initial scenario) I was describing all the voters
were voting-for-one voluntarily, in a method that allows them to
rank<br>
as many candidates as they like.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">With wv methods,
CW,Implicit-Approval, or
MDDA, I’d always employ defensive-truncation, never ranking
anyone whom I
wouldn’t approve if the election were by Approval.<span> </span>…&
would advise others to do the same.<span></span></span></p>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">…</span></blockquote>
In the case of Winning Votes methods, isn't the correct zero-info.
strategy the reverse of that, i.e. to rank equal-top all those you
would approve in an Approval election, and strictly rank<br>
all the others (random-filling if necessary)?<br>
<br>
That is one of the reasons I don't like it. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">autodeterrent methods (when the
best ones
have been chosen) will deter offensive strategy by electing
the Bus with
greater probability than the buriers’ favorite.<span>
</span>…without anyone having to use any defensive-strategy.<span></span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
What in your opinion is the best (or at least one of the best) of
the "auto-deterrent" methods? I'm curious to see a clear
definition and an example or two.<br>
<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/12/2023 5:06 pm, Michael Ossipoff
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOKDY5BzWRzUHNY9+9D-O7MVHOd6pcP4YOHUMybTvgE6CKd=qQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">For some reason, half of my reply
didn’t
post, & so I’ll try again now:<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Chris Behnam said:<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">[quote]<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">[/quote]<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Yes, that’s the definition of
Vote-For-1
(VF1).<span> </span>The thing is, however, that some
of us don’t like VF1.<br>
…<br>
[quote]<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">[/quote]<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Then Blake Cretney was mistaken.<span>
</span>Truncation can be strategic, or it can be
lazy, or hurried, or due to the balloting only allowing a
few rank-positions.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…&, if it’s strategic, it can
be
offensive or defensive strategy. <span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">With wv methods,
CW,Implicit-Approval, or
MDDA, I’d always employ defensive-truncation, never ranking
anyone whom I
wouldn’t approve if the election were by Approval.<span> </span>…&
would advise others to do the same.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<br>
<a name="m_2099524129484636097_burying"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a>[quote]<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">[/quote]<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Assuming things isn’t the
Condorcet’s job. It’s
to count all of everyone’s pairwise preferences, & elect
the candidate
whose election they imply.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">i.e. to elect the “sincere CW” if
there is
one.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">That doesn’t say anything about
there being
an exception in the case where there’s a “sincere CW”, but
no “voted CW” due to
offensive-strategy.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Perhaps didn’t know it, but critics
&
opponents of Condorcet reject it because offensive strategy
can defeat a “sincere
CW”, &, for some unfathomable reason, they don’t like
that.<br>
…<br>
If that happens, then the method is failing to fulfill its
promise to the
voters other than the offensive-strategizers. Condorcet’s
purpose is being
defeated.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">MinMax(wv), CW,Implicit-Approval,<span>
</span>& MDDA don’t let truncation of the CW
prevent hir election<span> </span>(unless maybe there’s
humungous indifference, in which case it doesn’t matter a
whole lot).<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Those methods deter burial by
electing the “Bus”
(the candidate under whom the CW is buried), when the CW’s
voters employ
defensive strategy.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">i.e. Don’t rank anyone whom you
wouldn’t vote
for in Approval, if you want to deter burial of the CW to
elect someone whom
you wouldn’t vote for in Approval.<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">…<span></span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">autodeterrent methods (when the
best ones
have been chosen) will deter offensive strategy by electing
the Bus with
greater probability than the buriers’ favorite.<span>
</span>…without anyone having to use any defensive-strategy.<span></span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>