Talk:Later-no-harm criterion

message: I think the following needs clarification: "less preferred candidate cannot cause a more preferred candidate to lose".  What is the definition of preferredness of one candidate versus another?  Can this be defined for all voting systems?  For example, in range voting how do you order the preferredness of the candidates?  It would be nice if less and more preferredness were links that give formal definitions. WilliamKF 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of ordering candidates preferredness

message: Tom 
I’ve undone your inclusion of Plurality in the list of methods that comply with later-no-harm. In the case of a single seat a voter cannot express a choice for a less preferred candidate so the criterion does not really apply. In the case of Plurality-at-large (with 2 or more seats being filled) Plurality actually fails later-no-harm. 
Take the example:
1   A>C
319 A>B
310 C>D
185 E>C
185 E>D
With 5 candidates contesting 2 seats.
If the E voters use both their votes the winners are C and D.
 
A  320
B  319
C  496
D  495
E  370
If the E voters cast only one vote the winners are now A and E.  
 
A 320
B 319
C 311
D 310
E 370
By voting for second choice, less preferred, candidates the E voters have caused their most preferred candidate to be defeated.
Dgamble997 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not the same. IRV fails monotonicity, but usually satisfies LNH. --Abd (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plurality and Later-no-harm

message: I'm surprised by this claim:
* The Condorcet criterion is incompatible with later-no-harm.
It seems a contradiction. If Minimax Condorcet satisfies LNH, and it always picks a Condorcet winner, then something is fishy here! Perhaps the Condorcet criterion doesn't apply because it isn't a method that always picks winners? That's the only weakness I can see. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Minimax Condorcet has three different ways of defining its score.  Depending on the definition, Minimax Condorcet may or may not satisfy Condorcet criterion.  In other words, it depends.  The confusion is understandable so it should probably be clarified.  Tastywheat (talk - contribs) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if someone would explain how the Condorcet method (assuming there is no cycle) violates LNH. Would someone do that please?  I cannot understand how bumping up any lower candidate hurts your favorite or some other candidate that remains ranked higher than the lower candidate you bumped up.  How is that higher-ranked candidate harmed by bumping up a lower-ranked candidate that remains lower? 96.252.13.17 (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condorcet criterion? 

message: The article needs clarification.
It fails to give a plain example of the subject.  Rather, it gives examples of it as applied to specific situations.  One is left wondering whether the subject is as applying to the voter's view or the election process.  Perhaps a more simplified and detailed intro explanation is in order.
It also fails to explain the acronym "STV" in the Commentary section quotation. - KitchM (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: In my opinion, the manner, how Filingpro applies later-no-harm to Coombs, is not appropriate. He treats Coombs as if it was a probabilistic voting method, which it isn't. Markus Schulze 12:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the concern, although we treat Coombs deterministically, because the ballot is only submitted after rankings are complete. Please see section Checking Compliance.Filingpro (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Unrestricted domain requires uncompleted ballot A be completed by the voter as ABC or ACB (either input is possible).Filingpro (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Coombs' method|Coombs]] and [[Later-no-harm criterion|later-no-harm]] 

message: As per comments in prior section re: "Certain IRV-variant" example I propose we remove this section.
1 This voting system does not have  a Wiki page or even exist as a voting system that I am aware of.
2 A runoff method doesn't reduce to "one pile", rather one pile has a majority over a second pile. Voters' ballots in the second pile (the minority) are considered to oppose the majority.
3 Candidates eliminated in a runoff system are eliminated permanently and don't come back.
4 I looked through the references and links regarding Robert's Rules to find the voting system references but can't find anything.
Filingpro (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to Remove "Certain IRV-variant" Example 

message: The ranked pairs entry is incorrect; I attempted to repair it, but I just don't know what actual set of ballots was intended.  I checked the page's revision history, and cannot find *any* prior revision in which B is preferred to A by the majority of voters in the first ballot, for example.  I do not want to simply delete the entire entry.  Could someone with knowledge of how Ranked Pairs violates Later-No-Harm take a look and fix the broken set of ballots?
204.187.100.20 (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranked Pairs Ballots 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Later-no-harm criterion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204174848/http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2002/oct02/voting.htm to http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2002/oct02/voting.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Folks I studied the reasons stated for the removal of the following statement (at the end of the intro.) and reinstated it for reasons listed below.
Voting systems that fail the later-no-harm criterion are vulnerable to the tactical voting strategy called bullet voting, which can deny victory to a sincere Condorcet winner.
• I think the article is improved by telling the reader the relevance of the criterion in the intro.
• This isn’t about “both sides”—it’s about the relevance of the voting system criterion in the article.
• “Sub-optimal outcomes” is vague.
• Bullet voting is in fact explicitly applied to all ballot types discussed in the article.
• Positive language here detracts from the meaning.
• A summary at the top is helpful and good writing practice—i.e. that Condorcet winners are overturned in the failure examples that follow, which they are.
• We don't need to repeat the statement in every example when we can say it once in the beginning.
I saved improved links and wording throughout edit history. Thank you.Filingpro (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet Voting & Significance of Failure in Intro. (Reasons For Reinstatement)  

message: Hi everyone,
I am just writing this to let editors know that edit warring is strictly against Wikipedia policy as it is unconstructive and goes against the five pillars of Wikipedia. Any contentious material must not be added without reliable citations. I am going to revert this page back to the last good revision before this edit war took place. Engaging in edit warring can lead to sanctions being imposed by community consensus including topic bans and blocks. In future, adding to or removing information from articles that might be classified as contentious should be discussed on the article's talk page first. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 03:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war