I can't help wondering why anyone would think it beneficial to have either later-no-harm or burial prevention in a voting method. Here is why:
1. later-no-harm prevents finding compromise candidates, and thus is not a desirable feature of a voting method, and 2. if a voter tries to bury a candidate, then logically it can only be (unless the voter is acting against his own interests) because he would rather have any other candidate more than the candidate he tries to bury. Allowing a voter to express which candidate he would like least is a good feature, not a bad one. All the talk about a voter preferring in truth a candidate 2nd and then burying that candidate below other candidates he prefers less, and thus giving those other candidates he prefers even less a better chance, well is simply illogical drivel. So why all the talk of trying to invent voting methods that have two very bad traits - later-no-harm and disallowing burial? I don't see why anyone would want to spend the time trying to devise such a flawed voting method as to prohibit finding compromise candidates that more voters like and to prohibit a voter from ability to contribute to preventing his least favorite choice from winning. Kathy ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
