Dear Chris! You wrote: > Jobst, > You and Marcus are (often) very quick responders! > Unfortunately "Democratic Fair Choice" incorporates > more than one feature to which I'm allergic.
Sorry to hear of your allergies... > I am strongly of the view that as far as possible, > the result of the election should be determined purely > by the voters, who are nominally (or "in theory") > voting sincerely. It can never be determined purely by the voters. Candidates must run, media will publish polls, and so on... > Therefore I'm opposed to explicit > strategy devices, Me too! > "candidate withdrawal options", Me too! > candidate proxy, I don't understand why you're opposed to that feature of DFC. The voter who votes for one of the published rankings knows what s/he votes for and can even modify that ranking by specifying approvals! > and reliance > (before-absolutely-unavoidable)on random devices. OK, but as you may have noticed, there is no randomness at all in DFC. It's completely deterministic :-) And what is "unavoidable" if not the necessity to avoid situations where the voted CW may not be a sincere CW but a fake CW produced by some majority who prefers that candidate to the sincere winner? Jobst ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
