--- Eric Gorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit :>I suspect it could be proven that a voter who uses only two ranks (due to >equal ranking) in a method which never rewards order reversal, could never >worsen the result from his perspective.
My intuition would say the same thing.
(assume the number of candidates > 3)
However, considering that insincere truncation will harm the ability for a method to find the group preference by shifting the decision on how at least two candidates compare with one another when that voter did have a sincere preference between them, suggesting that each voter only rank two candidates does not appear to be a good option.
First, that last phrase is not what I was suggesting. I meant that a voter would group all candidates into two groups, not that he would rank two candidates. The value I see in this is that the voter cannot make the result any worse than he has braced himself beforehand to accept. (This is equivalent to the situation in Approval: Your vote can't make someone win whom you didn't approve.
Ok. My comment remains essentially the same.
First, what does it mean to you for a voter not to be braced for an outcome they are unwilling to accept? What is that voter going to do?
Take it to court? They will not find any help there as their complaint would have no merit.
Rebel? If this would actually work, it is quite doubtful this single vote would have made any difference.
Submit anyway? In which case, there is no issue here.
Every voter, who understands that it is the group preference that matters, should be braced against all outcomes.
Insincere rankings will harm the ability of the method to select the group preference. A voter unwilling to submit to the group preference can do nothing but harm their own interests.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
