Later-no-harm criterion: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<p><em>Adding a preference to a ballot must not decrease the probability of election of any candidate ranked above the new preference.</em></p> |
<p><em>Adding a preference to a ballot must not decrease the probability of election of any candidate ranked above the new preference.</em></p> |
||
The reasoning behind this criterion is that the voter should feel free to vote his complete ranking of the candidates, without fear that he is "giving away" information about his lower choices that the method may use against him. |
|||
<h4 class=left>Complying Methods</h4> |
<h4 class=left>Complying Methods</h4> |
||
Revision as of 05:18, 23 March 2005
Statement of Criterion
Adding a preference to a ballot must not decrease the probability of election of any candidate ranked above the new preference.
The reasoning behind this criterion is that the voter should feel free to vote his complete ranking of the candidates, without fear that he is "giving away" information about his lower choices that the method may use against him.
Complying Methods
Later-no-harm is satisfied by First-Preference Plurality, Instant Runoff Voting, Minmax(pairwise opposition), Douglas Woodall's Descending Solid Coalitions method, and Random Ballot. It is failed by virtually everything else.