On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]> wrote: > The strategy is effectively identical in both versions, despite the > difference in form. That is, in both your mechanisms it seems apparent on > the face of it that a voter would not have a motivation, strategic or > otherwise, to choose a different approval set in the two methods.
Right. However, later no harm is preserved for the ranked ballot. One of the concerns raised with ranked ballot methods is that people won't rank more than 1. If they do that, then you lose the benefits of ranked ballots. This is not a concern here. For the approval vote, I agree that later no harm doesn't apply, but it never applied to approval voting anyway. It would allow other factions potentially to decide which of your candidates get elected. If the 2 votes are linked so ranks must be consistant with the approval vote then later no harm is lost as your ranked ballot determines who you can and can't approve. However, it means that voters must decide if they want to influence their own faction's elimination ordering or a different one. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
