Talk:Tactical voting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
([The Center for Election Science]] recently posted an article/whitepaper/whatever about tactical voting on their LinkedIn feed titled "Tactical Voting Basics". Should we take inspiration from this article?) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 53:
== Footnotes ==
<references/>
== Finding clearer names for strategies ==
"Compromise" has a nice, positive connotation that makes it easy for FairVote et al. to downplay it as "not that bad." It even makes it sound like it promotes "moderation" or "compromise" (when it does the opposite)! I prefer "decapitation" (cutting the "head"/top candidate off your list) or "lesser evil"—I've seen both of these in the literature.
Burial has a sufficiently-evocative name, I think (sounds like burying a dead body); which probably contributes somewhat to people's skittishness around Condorcet methods.
Pushover needs a better name (preferably one that highlights just how insane it is that this strategy works in IRV). I kind of want to call it "RNG hacking"...
Compression has an easy-to-understand name; it sounds less bad, but that's because it *is* less bad.
Pied-piper is more familiar to Americans by the name of "raiding."
--[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 02:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
| |||