0-info Later-No-Help: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
({{fromelectorama|0-info LNHe}}) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (definition template) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
'''Zero-Info LNHe (ZLNHe):''' |
'''Zero-Info LNHe (ZLNHe):''' |
||
In a 0-info election, voting above bottom one or more of some certain |
{{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.}} |
||
set of candidates shouldn't decrease the probability that the winner |
|||
will come from that set, as compared to voting them all at bottom. |
|||
[end of ZLNHe definition] |
|||
| Line 42: | Line 40: | ||
== Definition of Strong ZLNHe == |
== Definition of Strong ZLNHe == |
||
{{definition|Same as ZLNHe, except that voting one or more members of that set over bottom should ''increase'' the probability that the winner will come from that set (instead of just not decreasing that probability).}} |
|||
Same as ZLNHe, except that voting one or more members of that set over |
|||
bottom should ''increase'' the probability that the winner will come from |
|||
that set (instead of just not decreasing that probability). |
|||
[end of Strong ZLNHe definition] |
|||
---- |
|||
Someone could argue that a compliance with Strong 0-info Probabilistic Later-No-Help could, and should more properly, be called a failure of a 0-info probabilistic Later-No-Harm. |
Someone could argue that a compliance with Strong 0-info Probabilistic Later-No-Help could, and should more properly, be called a failure of a 0-info probabilistic Later-No-Harm. |
||
| Line 83: | Line 73: | ||
== Definition of Later-No-Help (LNHe) == |
== Definition of Later-No-Help (LNHe) == |
||
| ⚫ | |||
When, while making out your ballot, you've voted for some candidates, then you don't need to vote for additional candidates in order to fully help the candidates you've already voted for. |
When, while making out your ballot, you've voted for some candidates, then you don't need to vote for additional candidates in order to fully help the candidates you've already voted for. |
||
| Line 89: | Line 79: | ||
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. |
||
}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
---- |
|||
| Line 100: | Line 86: | ||
LNHe is relevant to bottom-end strategy. For example, many rank methods that fail LNHe have bottom-end strategy that calls for ranking unacceptable candidates in reverse order of winnability. A method that meets LNHe doesn't have such a strategy-need. LNHe-complying methods don't need bottom-end strategy. |
LNHe is relevant to bottom-end strategy. For example, many rank methods that fail LNHe have bottom-end strategy that calls for ranking unacceptable candidates in reverse order of winnability. A method that meets LNHe doesn't have such a strategy-need. LNHe-complying methods don't need bottom-end strategy. |
||
Some methods that don't strictly meet LNHe can meet ZLNHe and maybe Strong ZLNHe. For example, |
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. |
||
| Line 106: | Line 92: | ||
== A Few Compliance |
== A Few Compliance Demonstrations == |
||
(This will make more sense after reading the definition of [[Symmetrical ICT]] (SITC) ) |
(This will make more sense after reading the definition of [[Symmetrical ICT]] (SITC) ) |
||