On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:57:52 -0800 (PST) Alex Small wrote:
Said another way, giving points to only the first two ranks:Forest Simmons said:Alex, it seems to me that if only the first two ranks get points, then in a close race among several candidates if your favorite isn't among the top three contenders with near equal chances, you may want to give the top to slots on your ballot to your preferred among the top three contenders.This is true in the case of imperfect information. I should make the criterion a matter of hindsight: A method gives incentives for favorite betrayal if there exist situations in which a voter prefers an outcome obtained by ranking another candidate over his favorite over any and all outcomes that would have been obtained by sincerely ranking his favorite in first place.
Is fine if I find it convenient to list my favorite first and least-of-evils second.
Unreasonably favors whatever lemon I place second, if I have only one candidate to promote.
Unreasonably works against least-of-evils if there are two candidates I like better and actually place least-of-evils below second.
To clarify: Least-of-evils is the candidate I like best among those with an expectable chance of winning. I WANT to get in on this decision while also listing my true favorites up front.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
