From: Paul Kislanko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If I understand the meaning of the original example correctly, the answer is > Asset voting. > Give every voter 100 points. By the conditions given, both the A and B > voters think C is 80% as good as their true favorite, so give 5/9 of their > points to their favorite and 4/9 to C. > > A's total is 55 x 5/9 = 275/9 > B's total is 45 x 5/9 = 225/9 > C's total is 55 x 4/9 + 45 x 4/9 = 100 x 4/9 = 400/9 so C wins. That isn't how asset voting works. You assign your vote to the elector that you most trust. The elector can then assign the vote to any candidate after negotitation. There is a fractional version, but if you trust someone with 4/5 of your vote, why don't you trust them with 100% of your vote ? If the candidates are the electors, then the votes would go: A: 55 C: 0 B: 45 A then wins due to having a majority. There is no reason for him to assign any of his votes to C. However, in practice, it might end up A: 49 C: 11 B: 40 Anyway, the tactical situation is: A will win if no transfers occur, otherwise, any 2 candidates can determine the winner. C doesn't care who wins between A and B, so can convincingly say "Elect me or I abstain" as the default is just as good as B winning. B can then transfer his votes to C since he has nothing to lose. However, in practice, B would probably just let A win. Even if the chance is small that C was bluffing and thus votes for him, it is better than certainty of not being elected if he transfers his votes to C. Also, the B party would benefit from not electing C as it strengthens larger parties. B would also gain due to not having being bluffing when he said to C "Elect me or I also abstain". Under asset (single winner anyway), it might be better to have electors and candidates separate. The odds based asset is interesting. This would make it worth combining votes even if one side had a majority. There is no threshold where it isn't worth it. There is still the conflict between the electorate and the candidates. A voter might prefer the compromise, but a candidate will value being elected more than the issues the voter supported him for. ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
