On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:00 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Gervase Lam wrote:
>
>>> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:34:10 -0700
>>> From: Jonathan Lundell
>>> Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Bullet Voting in the wider media
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 11:53 AM 10/7/2007, Brian Olson wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/10/07/
>>>>> ballot_query_to_bullet_or_not_to_bullet
>>
>>> It may be worth noting (it goes without saying in the US) that the
>>> article is referring to n-seat plurality elections ("vote for no
>>> more
>>> than n" and top n win).
>>
>>> We should have another name for it.
>>
>> This the plurality version of Bloc (or Block) Voting:
>
> I meant: another name for "insincere" voting.
>
>>
>> <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Bloc_vote>
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_voting>
"Insincere" is good, at least for scientific purposes. Term
"strategic" that you picked up is good as well. For me the difference
is maybe that that sincerity assumes that the voters have been asked
to vote in some way (maybe in order to guarantee that the method will
provide the intended result) but they will not. Term "strategic"
assumes only consideration of different voting alternatives.
It is also possible that they are asked to consider their strategic
options and then vote strategically. In this case the two terms can
differ a bit. One could say that the voters are now sincere but
strategic.
Juho
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease
of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
