Raphfrk,
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> I was thinking, has anyone looked at the effects of risk aversion on
> voter strategy?
>
> In the above example, the voter might be faced with deciding which
> strategy to use:
>
> C
> 31% of +2
> 69% of +1
>
> Expected: 1.31
>
> D
> 45% of -1
> 55% of +4
>
> Expect: 1.75
>
> A voter might be willing to use option C even though D gives a better
> expected value.
In my opinion, if the voter prefers to vote option C than option D,
because he doesn't want to risk the -1 outcome, then he has not
correctly estimated that value as being -1.
I think that in a single election, with a single selection of candidates
and other voters, almost any voter should be able to assign utilities
such that Approval strategies make sense.
> The main point is that risk aversion could be the reason that in
> practice people drift away from perfectly strategic voting.
Do feel this is a big problem? I have seen more concern that voters
will vote the opposite way: Commit to a favorite candidate and cut
off any chance of even electing the second favorite.
> The example given was:
>
> Assuming that you start with $1 and can place a bet on a fair coin. If
> you win, you get 1.05 times your stake (and your stake back). You get to
> repeat the gamble as often as you want, but can only use your initial
> stake and any money you win.
>
> What is the optimal amount to bet in order to maximise the rate of
> income. Clearly, if you bet all your money you will with near certainty
> be bankrupt after say, 10 rounds.
I'm pretty sure you'd want to place a lot of very small bets. Do you
have the answer?
Kevin Venzke
___________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son
interface révolutionnaire.
http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
