Conclusion
By hiding his later rating for B, the voter could change his highest-rated favorite A from loser to winner. Thus, Majority Judgment fails the Later-no-harm criterion. Note, that Majority Judgment's failure to later-no-harm only depends on the handling of not-rated candidates. If all not-rated candidates would receive the best-possible rating, Majority Judgment would satisfy the later-no-harm criterion, but fail later-no-help.
If Majority Judgment would just ignore not rated candidates and compute the median just from the values that the voters expressed, a failure to later-no-harm could only help candidates for whom the voter has a higher honest opinion than the society has.
Read more about this topic: Later-no-harm Criterion, Examples, Majority Judgment
Famous quotes containing the word conclusion:
“No one can write a best seller by trying to. He must write with complete sincerity; the clichés that make you laugh, the hackneyed characters, the well-worn situations, the commonplace story that excites your derision, seem neither hackneyed, well worn nor commonplace to him.... The conclusion is obvious: you cannot write anything that will convince unless you are yourself convinced. The best seller sells because he writes with his heart’s blood.”
—W. Somerset Maugham (1874–1966)
“The chess pieces are the block alphabet which shapes thoughts; and these thoughts, although making a visual design on the chess-board, express their beauty abstractly, like a poem.... I have come to the personal conclusion that while all artists are not chess players, all chess players are artists.”
—Marcel Duchamp (1887–1968)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)