0-info Later-No-Help: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (definition template) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (formatting) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
(abbreviated ZLNHe. LNHe stands for [[Later-No-Help]]) |
(abbreviated ZLNHe. LNHe stands for [[Later-No-Help]]) |
||
== Definition of ZLNHe == |
== Definition of ZLNHe == |
||
'''Supporting definitions:''' |
'''Supporting definitions:''' |
||
Line 20: | Line 17: | ||
{{definition|In a 0-info election, voting above bottom one or more of some certain set of candidates shouldn't decrease the probability that the winner will come from that set, as compared to voting them all at bottom.}} |
{{definition|In a 0-info election, voting above bottom one or more of some certain set of candidates shouldn't decrease the probability that the winner will come from that set, as compared to voting them all at bottom.}} |
||
---- |
---- |
||
Line 36: | Line 30: | ||
elections. Therefore, ZLNHe is nearly the same thing as LNHe, and the |
elections. Therefore, ZLNHe is nearly the same thing as LNHe, and the |
||
word "weakening" hardly even applies. I suggest that, with a voting system complying with ZLNHe or Strong ZLNHe, there's no need to vote for unacceptable candidates. (just as can be said for methods complying with the slightly stronger LNHe). |
word "weakening" hardly even applies. I suggest that, with a voting system complying with ZLNHe or Strong ZLNHe, there's no need to vote for unacceptable candidates. (just as can be said for methods complying with the slightly stronger LNHe). |
||
== Definition of Strong ZLNHe == |
== Definition of Strong ZLNHe == |
||
Line 56: | Line 49: | ||
So, instead of a failure of a 0-info probabilistic Later-No-Harm, a compliance with Strong ZLNHe is more relevantly regarded as a compliance with a stronger and more reassuring 0-info probabilistic Later-No-Help. |
So, instead of a failure of a 0-info probabilistic Later-No-Harm, a compliance with Strong ZLNHe is more relevantly regarded as a compliance with a stronger and more reassuring 0-info probabilistic Later-No-Help. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
Methods that comply with LNHe include [[Approval voting]], Score Voting (also called [[Range voting]]), and IRV. |
Methods that comply with LNHe include [[Approval voting]], Score Voting (also called [[Range voting]]), and IRV. |
||
Line 66: | Line 58: | ||
Ordinary ICT, and traditional Condorcet methods don't comply with LNHe, ZLNHe or Strong ZLNHe. |
Ordinary ICT, and traditional Condorcet methods don't comply with LNHe, ZLNHe or Strong ZLNHe. |
||
---- |
---- |
||
== Definition of Later-No-Help (LNHe) == |
== Definition of Later-No-Help (LNHe) == |
||
Line 80: | Line 70: | ||
To fully help a candidate is to vote in a way that does as much as possible toward making him/her win. |
To fully help a candidate is to vote in a way that does as much as possible toward making him/her win. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Commentary == |
== Commentary == |
||
Line 87: | Line 76: | ||
Some methods that don't strictly meet LNHe can meet ZLNHe and maybe Strong ZLNHe. For example, Symmetrical ICT meets Strong ZLNHe, though it doesn't strictly meet LNHe. ZLNHe and Strong ZLNHe are the zero-information counterparts to LNHe. I claim that methods complying with ZLNHe, or especially Strong ZLNHe, for practical purposes, don't need bottom-end strategy. |
Some methods that don't strictly meet LNHe can meet ZLNHe and maybe Strong ZLNHe. For example, Symmetrical ICT meets Strong ZLNHe, though it doesn't strictly meet LNHe. ZLNHe and Strong ZLNHe are the zero-information counterparts to LNHe. I claim that methods complying with ZLNHe, or especially Strong ZLNHe, for practical purposes, don't need bottom-end strategy. |
||
---- |
---- |
||
== A Few Compliance Demonstrations == |
== A Few Compliance Demonstrations == |
||
Line 97: | Line 84: | ||
=== Why Symmetrical ICT (SITC) meets Strong ZLNHe === |
|||
In [[Symmetrical ICT]], bottom-voting X and Y (typically done by not ranking them) |
In [[Symmetrical ICT]], bottom-voting X and Y (typically done by not ranking them) |
||
Line 135: | Line 122: | ||
that the winner will come from {X,Y}. |
that the winner will come from {X,Y}. |
||
=== Why traditional unimproved Condorcet fails ordinary ZLNHe === |
|||
In a large official public election, pairwise ties are vanishingly |
In a large official public election, pairwise ties are vanishingly |
||
Line 154: | Line 141: | ||
[end of compliance and noncompliance demonstrations] |
[end of compliance and noncompliance demonstrations] |
||
---- |
---- |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
suggesting something about likely beaten-ness of X and Y by other candidates. |
suggesting something about likely beaten-ness of X and Y by other candidates. |
||
That could tend to make some strategic incentive to |
That could tend to make some strategic incentive to |