Hi, --- En date de : Ven 8.7.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> a écrit : > Bob Richard wrote: > > It turns that real live voters (including real live > politicians) care a lot about the later-no-harm criterion, > even if they don't know what it's called. > > > > If true, that is unfortunate. Perhaps we would have to pick > a better criterion that is also easy to understand, > something like the (weak) Favorite Betrayal Criterion. But > if we have to do that, then a lot of otherwise good methods > go out the window.
Well, you can modify MinMax to satisfy FBC. But, you have to figure out what to do when it returns more than one unbeaten candidate. First- preference count is the most obvious general fix. Probably violates Plurality. "Total support" would be better but brings in an additional concept... Yes, I think that if FPP didn't have such strong nomination disincentive, voters would be more concerned about the principle of not having to lie about who their favorite is. As things are, who other than a "third-party extremist" would ever need to worry about it? It's too bad there is no conclusive, persuasive way to measure LNHarm or FBC performance. There's certainly better and worse among methods that fail. Kevin Venzke ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
