On 10/9/09, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> wrote: > I like the concept... > However, consider the following honest preferences: > Candidates > Party A: Alice and Al; party B, Berenice > > Voters: > 5 A voters: Alice 100, Al 40, Berenice 0 > 2 independent voters: Alice 0, Al 100, Berenice 90 > 3 B voters: Alice 0, Al 10, Berenice 100 > > Totals: Alice 500, Al 430, Berenice 480. Party averages: A 465, B 480. > Winners, Al and Berenice *** > > So the independent voters would be best-served by dishonestly ranking Alice > above Berenice, so as to give party A an extra slot and elect Al. In other > words, you're forcing the straitjacket of party loyalty onto them.
--You probably have a genuine problem in mind here, but you screwed up when trying to present your example. You just said Al is elected, then you said the Indpt voters want to lie in order to elect Al. Huh? Oh, I see, the real winners were Alice and Berenice; change the line I adorned with *** to fix it. Hmm, I'm not immediately sure what to think of this. I guess there are two kinds of mental goals a voter could have: to elect certain candidates (or not), and to boost (or not) certain parties. The problem if any (?) is the voter sometimes has to decide which. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step) and math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
