I'd said: And, because preferrers of MJ could strategically 0-rate Approval and Score, I didn't want to co-operate with tha
[endquote] ...when it could result in my MJ winning instead of one of my favorites. I'd said: If you equal top-rate a compromise in a poll, and then notice that the compromise has acquired more points than your favorite, then maybe you have been had. [endquote] Of course the whole point of giving points to a compromise is just in case the compromise _does_ end up with more points than your favorite, and is therefore the candidate that you can help to beat someone worse. So, the only objectionable thing about the above scenario would be if Favorite would have otherwise won, but didn't, because of strategic downrating by Compromise's voters. I'd said: Someone else wasn't as co-operative as you were. It happens often in polls. Just because you give their candidate a good rating, doesn't mean they give one to your candidate. [endquote] Again, it isn't that every rating should be reciprocated, or that you don't want Compromise to pull ahead and outpoll Favorite. That might be the only way you'll have a way to beat Worse. The idea is just to avoid helping strategic 0-rating take the win from your favorite(s). If Compromise gets a large total, more than Favorite, then your little SFR boost might well be enough to help hir win. ...but with a relatively small chance of giving it away to Compromise if s/he otherwise has a lower total. Mike Ossipoff ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
