On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: >> The only real issue is the one where your sincere vote: >> A S D (normal option, supermajority option, default option) >> will cause S to win (thanks to you letting it pass its supermajority), but >> your insincere vote: >> A D S >> will cause A to win (thanks to S being eliminated early, by not passing its >> supermajority). > In this case, I think it would be fair for the insincere reversal to > casue D to win, thus sending the matter back to discussion. This > would not in fact be "strategy" in an voting sense, rather in a > larger political sense, and is thus outside the scope of a voting > system. > But causing A to win is not fair. If your actual preference is A S D, then voting A D S is still an insincere vote by definition. Note that in this case, the voter *really, honestly prefers* either of the two non-default options over the default, but the result he *most* prefers will *lose* the vote *IFF* he votes and votes sincerely. This is a flaw, because not voting or voting insincerely gives a better outcome from this voter's POV than voting sincerely does. You also talk about only allowing insincere votes to cause the default option to win, but you can't distinguish between sincere and insincere votes in the system: the tallying process must itself protect against strategic voting, and I don't see how you can devise a voting system that would permit insincere votes to cause a win for "further discussion" without also permitting insincere votes to cause a win for other options. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp9VZOjNAqQS.pgp
Description: PGP signature