On May 11, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 2010/5/9 Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]>
> On May 9, 2010, at 8:57 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> > how about expanding the definition of Later-No-Harm (can we find a name for
> > it?) to include later harming one's political interest (not *just* their
> > favorite candidate) by sincerely voting their conscience?
>
> That's called 'manipulability', and good luck finding a method that avoids it
> (short of random selection, of course).
>
> Sure. But you can minimize it. I touched on that in my "8 of 9: fairness"
> post. Basically, you want to minimize the average utility gained by strategic
> voters, and maximize the dishonesty required to gain that utility (because
> the dishonesty is also the risk of strategy).
I agree. I think.
I have more to say on the meta-criteria subject, and will get around to saying
it. It's a valuable discussion. Thanks for raising it.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
