Anonymous user
Talk:Later-no-harm criterion: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>KVenzke No edit summary |
imported>KVenzke No edit summary |
||
Line 6:
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)
By the way, there are three main reasons why I stopped worrying about Later-no-harm:<br>
1. It seems to be incompatible with the [[Minimal Defense criterion]].<br>
2. Even [[MMPO]] retains some approval elements. You may be able to rank A as well as A>B, but it could well be that the only way to elect one of these candidates is to vote A=B.<br>
3. Although [[MMPO]] satisfies LNHarm, it is still strategically unwise to vote for the worse frontrunner, since if it's expected that you'll do this, the worse frontrunner's supporters can use burying strategy against you to steal the win.
Also, as a note: If you bar ties in the ranking, you can't satisfy the [[Favorite Betrayal criterion]]. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 15:12, 17 Aug 2005 (PDT)
| |||