[email protected] wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
I also imagine it would be useful in places where it's hard to
strategize or the context means there won't be any strategy. Such
examples might be computers in a redundant system voting about an
observation under uncertainty (the "strategy" will be a random
distortion) or actual round robin tournaments (where engineering a
Condorcet cycle based on just one's own matchups would be quite
hard).
Or how about in the context of ranking websites for search engine hits?
There are strategists in the realm of website ranking: they're called
SEO companies. If I remember correctly, Google uses some form of local
Kemenization (bubble-sorting, basically) to harden its eigenvector
method against gaming.
If we assume Google's ballot model, where every site votes for every
site it links to, then we have, in effect, a bunch of really truncated
two-level ballots. Strategists can't bury pages (other than by not
linking to them), but they can strategically choose which pages to link
to in the first place. This has an advantage in the eigenvector system
because linking to a page makes it more authoritative - its voting
weight is related to the number of pages (weighted) that link to it.
The strategy is there, but it's different than in other voting systems.
Some trust networks (but not Google's, AFAIK), have manipulation
resistance proofs, e.g. http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html .
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
