Quick reply from James G-A to Jameson Quinn...
Thank you for the example. Unlike the "Bucklin" example which started out this thread (which showed a pathology of ranked Bucklin which was not pathological at all in the (rated) MCA case), this is indeed on-target. Not only do I consider it to be a problem with Approval, I consider it to be the most serious such problem, one which would probably occur in real life.
I agree.
Are you happy if I call burial lowering w "minimal burial", and burial raising x "third-party burial"?
Sure, as long as some distinction is made from the basic definition. Back in 2004, I tried to make a somewhat similar distinction between 'compression' vs. 'reversal' strategies, e.g. 'burying-compression' vs. 'burying-reversal'.
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-March/012548.html http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~armytage/voting/define.htm#strategy
So, let me say, I'd like to find a rigorous definition of burial, equivalent to yours in all ranked cases, where only scenarios which risk electing a third party count. I haven't yet found such a definition.
Well, I'm interested in these kinds of ideas, sort of. That is, if there are methods that give strategic incentives, but these incentives don't have a tendency to lead to harmful consequences, I'd like to talk about that. My impression is that most strategic incentives can lead to harmful consequences, but perhaps one can make distinctions between greater and lesser degrees of harm, or greater and lesser probabilities of harm --- I don't actually know, but it's a very interesting question.
though I trust that you'd be thoughtful about whether to insist on that right.
Well, yeah... Obviously I'm not trying to be the dictator of anything; I'm just trying to avoid confusion over terms.
my best, James ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
