I I misquoted Blake's example, the one in this message's subject line. He'd said that B>A=C is insincere if done to keep A from winning due to order-reversal. Maybe, but as a voter I wouldn't vote: 1. B 2. A & C I'd just vote: 1. B So I'm not making an insincere statement about A & C; I'm just not including them. This isn't just a semantic point; defensive truncation doesn't have the ways of backfiring & giving away the election that are had by the insincere upranking that I call "drastic defensive strategy". And I question whether B>C>A is sincere in the sense in which we've been using the word. You like A's policies better than those of C, but you rank C over A to defeat the A voters' order-reversal. You dislike the A voters for what they're trying to do, but it seems to be reaching a bit to say that you're sincerely ranking C over A, when you'd be better off if A won rather than C. *** Anyway, again, insincere upranking can give elections away, and, in any case, who says that the B votes know which extreme candidate they need to use that strategy against. When, in Votes-Against, the B voters make it publicly known that they aren't voting a 2nd choice, no one will try order-reversal. When the B voters' intended strategy in Margins leaks out, it will be pounced on, and the B voters will be taken advantage of by the C voters. Unless of course they're above the use of strategy, an assumption that we don't usually make here. Mike
