Mr. Carey wrote- Mike Ossipoff has been writing about reducing/minimizing the "need for insincerity". I request that the "need for insincerity" numbers be stated. The moment they are defined, there could be a simple minimizing of the need for insincerity quantities over all the finite number of different sets of possible winners. Imaginably some highly unsatisfactory preferential voting method would be found but I guess that Mike Ossipoff can't estimate what the need for insincerity is. ---- D- In the single winner case, the sincere/ insincere situation happens when there is (guess what)- a divided majority. Polls before the election show *roughly* a *sincere* possible vote of 26 ABC 25 BAC 49 C[A=B] Some of the C voters may want to be insincere and rank A > B or B > A. Some of the first choice A and B voters may then want to be insincere. Not so amazing. I say so what. Majority rule is majority rule. My standard mantra- an election method works on the votes cast (not added or removed votes -- unless some major felonies are being committed). To get ONLY *sincere* votes would require something like lie detectors connected to the (now no longer secret) ballots. No thanks.
