<html><head>
</head>
<body style="margin-bottom:45px">
<div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div id="LGEmailHeader" dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">------ Original message------</div><div dir="auto"><b>From: </b>Closed Limelike Curves<closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com></closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com></div><div dir="auto"><b>Date: </b>Fri, Apr 12, 2024 14:25</div><div dir="auto"><b>To: </b>Michael Ossipoff;</div><div dir="auto"><b>Cc: </b>Chris Benham;James Gilmour;Kevin Venzke<a href="mailto:;election-methods@lists.electorama.com">;election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>;robert bristow-johnson;</div><div dir="auto"><b>Subject:</b>Re: [EM] Hare (aka IRV) versus STAR</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">> Also worth noting STAR is good because it makes strategy require more-than-zero thinking. Anyone with a pulse can figure out the best strategy for score within 5 seconds,</d
iv><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">My goodness, I certainly disagree with that.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">How high do I score my second-favorite candidate (or my lesser-evil candidate)?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> but the strategy for STAR isn't immediately obvious, so people fall back on giving their honest preferences.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">And I have shown here a counter-example where that leads to a spoiled election and where tactical scoring in STAR can get voters a better result (given their preferences as marked on the ballot).</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> (For example, in Alaska Republicans failed to work out their best strategic vote was Begich > Palin >Peltola.)</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Yes. That's well established, and from those numbers we can easily show a scenario for how STAR would mis-perform as much as IRV.</div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</body></html>