On Dec 31, 2007, at 16:38 , CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
the point is that with range voting, that voter will have a better
expected happiness than with other methods - especially if the other
voters are strategic! which is precisely the opposite point to what
it seems that you perceived me to imply.
Could you give an example where strategic voting of voters with
competing opinions increases one's happiness?
Yes, in many situations Range would indeed provide good results. The
problem is that in competitive situations it may not do so.
no! warren's utility figures tested the full range of 0% strategic
voters to 100% strategic voters, and found that range voting was
superior to the other common methods. in fact, range voting's
superiority over rivals such as condorcet and borda actually
_increases_ the more "competitive" the election becomes.
http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html
how is this not more well-known in a discussion list of this sort?
I already addressed this in my previous mail. In some of the Warren's
simulations it appears that the problematic cases from Range are
hidden because even distribution of strategic voters is assumed.
Range typically has problems in cases where one party is more
strategic than the other parties.
Different elections have also different needs
=> maximizing the average utility is not always what we want.
name an example. that sounds preposterous. utility is _by
definition_ the measure of what voters want.
One example from the Range world: When five friends go out to eat
pizza result 50,50,50,50,50 may be considered better than result
70,70,70,70,0.
Do you say that in Condorcet elections the best strategy for A
supporters would be to vote A>X>Y>Z>B if they believe that A is the
strongest candidate and B is the second strongest candidate?
yes! it may be a little more nuanced than that, but that's the gist.
warren can explain it better i'm sure.
I'm reasonably sure he can't explain that to be a general rule ;-).
and whether it's a good idea or not, a lot of people will just
intuitively do it, because it "feels" like they are pushing B down
more strongly.
That may be the first reaction of some people. I think these
questions should be discussed before the first election to provide
sufficient understanding of the method to all voters.
I just picked two strategies that have been often recommended and
that are simple.
what you described for condorcet was not a "strategy" -- it was a
sincerity! :D
That's the good part in Condorcet. Sincerity is actually a pretty
good strategy, maybe the best in most situations.
Juho
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
