Re: Another proposal.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:53:20PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
Keep in mind that all voting systems have this flaw. It's just that
in Condorcet/CSSD, it is difficult to exploit. So sometimes I say
"this system allows strategic voting", when I mean "this system
makes strategic voting much more effective than Condorcet/CSSD". I
think this is still an important distinction.
> 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:
Right, again what I really mean is, I oppose a system in which
insincere votes for the default are more effective than insincere
votes in Condorcet/CSSD. The proposals which include early
elimination of options beaten by the deafult (possibly with
a supermajority requirement taken into account) have this property.
Andrew
Reply to: