I am afraid much of what venzke said in kind of demolishing many of my claims in my "summary" (which was attempting to correct myself from before...)... is true. Mea culpa.
But I do not buy some of his abuse-o-gram. Fact is, a lot of voters want to express maximum information (natural human drive) and do not want to truncate ballots. Also in a lot of natural situations voters feel they DO know about eveyr candidate in the race. You argue it is "joke" that I could imagine that. I disagree. Also, I do not buy the abuse of my "DH3 pathology". The strategies he considers "stupid" for voters are not stupid. They can in fact be "strategically forced" under the right assumptions about what the others are going to do. Far as I can see. It sure looks like "WMDDA" is not a good idea thanks to the fact my "proofs" of some of its wonderful properties, are now busted. And I still do not understand some of this jive about "risk free burial" and still woudl like explicit election examples so I can understand. It it too handwavy at the moment. As you can see from this little episode, my mental abilities are highly limited. The wikipages about ICA merely gave some extremely cryptic hints about why explicit approval a bad idea. The new emails coming at me give a little more but it is still highly non-expicit. By explicit, I mean, actual election examples with numbers. wds ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
