My argument about Nash Equilibria was based on a fallacy: Although a single faction of voters may be indifferent between giving a candidate partial points versus full or zero points, a player changing from one strategy to another may change incentives for another faction.
For instance, if we have an equilibrium where B wins and a faction prefering A over B gave A partial points, B might still win if that faction gave A full points. However, the Nash Equilibrium might still be destroyed by that faction's strategic adjustment. It may be that A now has sufficient votes so that he will win if another faction preferring A over B gave A more points. Alex ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
