And the DH3 chemical weapon is really nasty. C'mon, folks. If it's worth an abbreviation or acronymn it's worth spelling out.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Kevin Venzke > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 11:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [EM] I eat my words (but not wholly) 2 > > Warren, > > --- Warren Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > I don't get it. Supose there are 3 candidates. Do you > really regard it > > as inconceivable that all voters could, without effort, learn enough > > about all 3 of them to rank them? I think that could easily happen. > > There may be strategic reasons not to rank all the > candidates. This is particularly > so if you want to dissuade other voters from attempting to DH3 you. > > In many rank methods it is the case that by ranking an > additional candidate, you > can cause this candidate to be elected instead of a candidate > you prefer to > this candidate. > > In MMPO this never happens. But there is *still* truncation > incentive, in the > sense that you still want to discourage other voters from > using DH3 strategy. > > Kevin Venzke > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > _____________ > Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau > Yahoo! Messenger > Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com > ---- > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
