voting refers to the practice of giving a lower rank that would other-
wise be justified to some proposals (“low-balling”) in order to in-
crease the likelihood that other proposals will win. It may also mean
boosting the ranking of a mediocre or controversial proposal to
improve its chances for funding. Horse-trading means enabling the
realization of other panelists’ objectives in the hope that they will
reciprocate. Some construe this as non-meritocratic, because the
horses being traded are not necessarily equivalent, and one of them
may “win” because of “politics” as opposed to intrinsic strength.
Many panelists, however, acknowledge strategic voting as normal,
to the extent that they admit explicitly calibrating their own votes in
anticipation of those of the other evaluators. An English professor,
for instance, recalls ranking a feminist theorist’s proposal highly
partly because I knew that the other panelists would be put off by
her style and I knew that I would want to argue very strongly in
herfavor...I’vereadherother work and I really admire it. She
does something very close to what I aspire to do...Herstyleis
very informal and very mannered, it’s not standard academic
prose by any means...Ijustthought her style would be so an-
noying that people wouldn’t be able to see past it to the value of
what she was doing. The other reason is, she takes psychoanalysis
very seriously, and psychoanalysis is beloved only by a small rem-
nant of literary critics. I figured that would probably turn some
people away.This professor describes her voting in strategic terms, but it is en-
tirely legitimate for panelists to rank a proposal highly when they be-
lieve its quality justifies such a score. In every case, a vote aims to
support a proposal or prevent its funding. It is strategic when it is
guided primarily by a desire to facilitate or hinder the funding of an-
other proposal, or to influence other panelists. The opposite of stra-
122 / Pragmatic Fairness