Anonymous user
Talk:Later-no-harm criterion: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Jrfisher No edit summary |
imported>KVenzke No edit summary |
||
Line 2:
As an alternative to satisfying "later-no-harm", a method may level the field for all voters by disallowing ties and truncation (demanding a complete or whole ranking). [[User:Jrfisher|Jrfisher]] 12:40, 17 Aug 2005 (PDT)
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument about polarization as opposed to convergence. The point of LNHarm, in my opinion, is that voters may feel free to offer their compromise choices without having to worry that this will cause a preferred choice to lose.
In my opinion, disallowing truncation doesn't eliminate the problem that Later-no-harm addresses. It's just that now you don't rank a candidate instead of not ranking him, you rank a candidate higher as opposed to randomly. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 15:03, 17 Aug 2005 (PDT)
| |||