On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Terry Bouricius <[email protected]> wrote: > A somewhat more accessible (and available online for free) analysis of > strategic vulnerability of various methods is in this doctoral paper by > James Green-Armytage ("Strategic voting and Strategic Nomination: > Comparing seven election methods"). He found that Range and Approval were > just about the worst in terms of manipulability. > http://econ.ucsb.edu/graduate/PhDResearch/electionstrategy10b.pdf
His assumptions about how people vote are not very realistic. Plurality -> vote for favourite Top 2 - run-off -> vote for favourite and then best of top 2 Alternative vote -> honest ranking Minimax -> honest ranking Borda -> honest ranking Approval -> vote for better than mean Range -> give max to favourite and min to least favourite and scale the rest His analysis is pretty interesting and he has created a condition for each method that is needed for the winner to be vulnerable to loss if a group of voters switched their vote. In practice, people are able to handle the basics of plurality strategy. It would be interesting to see how approval scores with a pre-election poll being performed. For example, each voter approves based on a mean threshold and then use the result of that election to work out the top-2. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
