Forest, I tried out my suggestion and it worked incredibly badly. The given odds seemed very exaggerated for unviable candidates; it suggested to almost every faction that its expectation was near midrange. I tinkered with exponents to exaggerate higher-ranked candidates, but I didn't get much improvement.
However, I wonder if, using MPCR as you've defined it, except that the viability calculation each round took into account the total number of points awarded by a ballot, MPCR might be made more clone-proof. (It would not make any difference in my trials, though (every faction votes one candidate per rank), so I can't test it.) I think you understand what I mean by "clone-proof." As it is, I wonder if an ideology would have an advantage by running clones, and differentiating their slots. They presently get comparable viability per candidate, and could force other factions to merge their own candidates too soon. --- Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit�: > And we know that we have the right rule for the three slot ballot! I wonder if it still works with more than three candidates for those ranks? Maybe you've already thought this through, but might there be a clone problem? I'll think about this. > So in the case of the Three Slot Max Power Cardinal Rating method, we > could justly claim the name MVP, the "Max Voting Power" method. > > Note how this corresponds with the technical definition of voting power, > the probability of your vote being pivotal. OK, but I'm trying to remain optimistic that we'll figure out "Better Than Expectation" at some point. Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran�ais ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
