On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Jonathan Lundell
<[email protected]> wrote:
The problem with these approaches (a problem, anyway) is that they
abandon
later-no-harm. That seems a rather high price to pay.
Well, the first suggestion, where the approval ballot is separate from
the ranked ballot still meets later no harm (with respect to the
ranked ballot). Ranking all the candidates is still risk free.
The problem I have with the distinction between the two approaches is
that they seem equivalent to me. What would motivate a voter to have a
different approval set in the two cases?
Also, I think later no harm basically means "won't compromise". I am
not sure that it is even a desirable criterion for a method to have
and think that the fact that a method that doesn't meet later no harm
is a not major issue.
Well, we can disagree about that, no doubt. For me, it's a high
priority to eliminate or reduce strategic considerations from the
actual voting act, and LNH eliminates a big one.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
