2011/3/22 Kevin Venzke <[email protected]> > Hi Jameson, > > (begin quote) > I wrote: > Anyway, the Asset methods stumped me somewhat because I couldn't come > up with a deterministic way to solve the method that doesn't seem to > be contrived. For instance, it's possible that two of the three candidates > are able to transfer. Who has initiative? How do they even know if they > would like to have initiative? Maybe they'd rather do nothing. So, I > didn't attempt to write a method that might not be faithful to the idea. > > you wrote: > All "transfers" are simultaneous and represent "copies" rather than bowing > out. Since the "can I transfer to you" criterion is the same as the "will > you beat me without transfers" criterion, at least in the 3-candidate case > there are no issues of initiative or transfer strategy. The pre-transfer > 2nd place has no motivation whatsoever to transfer to the pre-transfer 1st > place, and no ability to transfer to the 3rd place. So, if transfers are > happening at all, it's just that 3rd place is acting as a kingmaker > (pseudo-IRV style); that's simple. > (end quote) > > I'm still seeing a problem in that it doesn't seem that the "stat of > interest" is necessarily the place where the median tie occurs. This > means that "3rd place" according to "stat of interest" might actually > be the current winner of the method, in which case both 3rd and 2nd > place might be uncertain whether to "transfer." Right? >
Transfers only happen in the case of median ties. So if there is a current winner, there are no transfers. > > That is, 3rd place might naively perceive that he definitely shouldn't > transfer. But 2nd place might guess that and transfer to 1st place, in > order to defend against a win by 3rd place. In that situation 3rd place > *might* be better off transfering to 2nd place (if that's seen as > preferable to 1st place). > > It seems like if you're trying to do an IRV-style elimination of sorts > then the metric of interest should be tied to the metric for winning. > Let me know what you think. > It's true that, on further thought, my simultaneous-transfer idea does not work for more than three candidates. But I still think there are no ambiguities for three.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
