On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> wrote: > As I understand it, most people here don't really think that later-no-harm > is desirable. Your argument that burial-resistance is undesirable, however, > is simply untrue. A voter can bury B because she prefers A, and still regret > the burial if C is elected.
Exactly. This is why burial is a tactic that only makes any sense if one buries his least favorite candidate or, better yet, the least favorite mainstream party candidate (as Kristofer M. pointed out). As Jonathan Lundell noted, "burial is a simple, intuitive and attractive strategy that can be easily employed by relatively naive voters", and it therefore ought to be allowed so that voters can try to bury their least favorite mainstream candidate. Burial ability is a good feature of voting systems, easily understood by most voters, not a feature to be avoided. I'm glad we seem to agree that later-no-harm is not a good feature of a voting system because it prevents compromise. -- Kathy Dopp http://electionmathematics.org Town of Colonie, NY 12304 "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the discussion with true facts." Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174 Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf View some of my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
