On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:00:29AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > Well, splitting a vote into multiple ballots, with options > referring to the same outcome, is a horrendously bad idea -- since the > massive amounts of strategic voting possibilities will taint the final > result.
On the contrary. It is excess of overlapping options that prompt for strategic voting. For example, if I don't care much between option A and option B, but prefer either of them to option C, I might give equal weight to A and B in order to prevent circular ambiguities. In fact it is only starting with the presence of a 3rd option that strategy gets into the game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard-Satterthwaite_theorem Also, note that my alternate option to Andreas' proposal [1] was carefully worded to avoid making assumptions about the order in which votes would be processed. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00086.html -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
