Adam, you make a lot of sense to me. I might soon rally to most of your arguments...
Steph. Adam H Tarr a �crit : > >With my scenario, I would need to track and convince 11% of the 18% > >potential truncaters in order to steal the strongly supported CW with > >(wv) (more than half). > > > >With your scenario, you would need to track and convince 47% of the 49% > >potential truncaters in order to steal the poorly supported CW with (rm) > > > >and 48% of the 49% potential truncaters (almost all of them) in order to > >steal the poorly supported CW with (margins). > > Well, I had cooked things to give Ralph just about the minimum support to > make the example work. I could just as easily cook it the other way, > just by strengthening Ralph's faction: > > 49%: George>Al>Ralph > 6%: Al>George>Ralph > 6%: Al>Ralph>George > 39%: Ralph>Al>George > > Note that Al is still the CW and still has a majority over every > candidate -- I haven't changed the fundamentals of the situation at all. > > Now, only 25% of the 49% in the George>Al>Ralph faction need to truncate > to foul up the results. Thats comparable (favorably comparable actually) > to the 11% of 18% that you cited. If I really wanted to skew the results > here, I could set it up so you only needed around 7% of the George > faction to truncate. Again, I could do this without fundamentally > changing the nature of the election; Al would still be a CW with majority > support over the candidates on either side. So really, we're just > talking about an artifact of the example I chose. > > The more important issue is that it's very easy for these problems to > crop up in margins, and it's easy to recognize them when they do, and > it's easy to foul up the results just by truncating (which is a very > natural thing for the voter to do). In the winning votes examples, the > problems only show up when there's a lot of truncation to start with, and > then they only show up in a pretty fractured race where it would probably > be hard to tell whether truncation will help or hurt you. > > -Adam > > ---- > For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), > please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
