I see some to applaud here:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:56:32 -0400 Andrew Myers wrote:
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:51:40 -0400
From: Andrew Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stephane Rouillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EM] Citation for immunity to strategic voting?
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 05:55:01PM -0400, Stephane Rouillon wrote:
Actually as many people will tell you,
this claim is wrong.
I see that Rob already gave you a counter example.
Maybe you would like to know that using winning vote as
criteria to make pairwise comparison instead of margins
can make your claim true for strong Condorcet winners
(ones which have a more than 50% majority against every
other candidate). Using margin as a criteria your claim is only valid
for stronger Condorcet winners (having a 2/3 majority against
every other candidate).
Another argument for wv over margins - which I already prefer for other reasons.
Finally, no method is know to garantee the election of a weak
Condorcet winner against unsincere preferences. This
is understandable because absentees can always alter the balance
against the Condorcet winner and hope to unsincerely create
a cycle containing one of their better choice.
Hope it helps,
Steph.
That's very helpful and makes perfect sense. I guess we could guarantee no weak
CW by requiring that voters order all candidates, but this might be seen to be
onerous. On the other hand, there will probably be a set of "plausible"
candidates and if voters know they should make sure to rank all of them it
would help create a strong CW. One could also imagine employing a runoff
election mechanism in the case of a top cycle (as Juho suggested) where
additionally voters were required to give a total order on all candidates to
defend against strategic voting.
I choke on forbidding truncation, for I see that generating excessive noise.
However, I see here ranking all the "plausible" candidates, which I see as
less pain. Further, I suspect it does not demand full compliance - seems
like partial compliance would defend against all but the strongest strategies.
I do choke on runoffs. Aside from being expensive, they have their own
problems. Better to make strategies as difficult as practical and
tolerate what was close to a tie being pushed the wrong way without the
strategists getting caught and, hopefully, punished.
Thanks,
-- Andrew
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
