At 06:11 AM 7/26/2007, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >I forgot to include this in "Smith exposes our false statements": > >Smith said that sometimes extreme rating is suboptimal in RV. So, Smith, >when is that so?
First of all, the original statement was general, and so Smith simply gave a simple counterexample from a small election, a common practice on this list. Ossipoff does it himself. But now he specifies his statement more narrowly, and Smith's example, therefore, no longer applies -- if I remembered it correctly. >We're talking about public elections, where there are so many voters that >your own votes won't change the probabilities enough to change your >strategy. I've given a case, fully specified. How many times to I have to repeat it. Many voters. Zero knowledge, which means that all the probabilities are exactly equal. Three candidates, Range 2, our voter has utilities of 2,1,0. Optimal voting strategy: Sincere. Expected utility of Sincere: 40/27, of Approval, 39/27. Not voting: 1.0. >Smith should probably check the consensus before shooting his mouth off. Or >at least refer to quotes that have been posted. With a counterexample, we do not worry about consensus, do we? The emperor has no clothes. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
