Greg,
I've come to the strong view that truncation (e.g. bullet voting)
without order-reversal shouldn't really qualify as a (insincere)
"strategy".
I don't see any point or use in us trying to distinguish between:
truncation because the voter is sincerely ambivalent or has no
preference among the unranked candidates, truncation because
the voter's preferences among the unranked candidates are too
weak for her to be bothered recording, or truncation because the
voter fears being stung by later-harm or is deliberately concealing
a clear pairwise preference in a diabolical scheme to thwart the
election of a shining sincere Condorcet winner.
I agree that resistance to Burying is atractive and IRV's big selling
point versus Condorcet methods.
Chris Benham
Greg Dennis wrote (Sat.Nov.22):
Perhaps intuitiveness is a bit in the eyes of the beholder, but I'll
tell you the strategies I find intuitive:
- Burying a candidate with strong first choice support
- Bullet voting for a candidate with strong first choice support
- A compromise in which you switch your first choice vote to a
candidate who has stronger first choice support.
-snip-
...I have grown to believe resistance to burying essential.
-snip-
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
