One note. I said below/earlier that the scenarios present a chicken dilemma. I should have noted that, like most real-world chicken dilemmas, this one is not perfect, as voter group a is not perfectly indifferent between candidates B and C.
2011/10/21 Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> > I'd be interested in running an behavioral-economics-type experiment on > voting behavior. I imagine a game matrix of 9 voters and 3 candidates, with > each candidate having a known payout for each player. For each condition, > we'd have a separate group of experimental subjects. We'd run two > non-binding "pre-election polls" and one "election", and then pay real money > for the payout. I could put up the money, create the experimental protocol, > and program a web app to run the elections, but I'd like help actually > getting diverse sets of subjects. I imagine three payoff matrices (positive, > zero, and negative sum; see below) and up to six voting systems (approval, > range, MJ, SODA, condorcet for negative sum, and IRV for positive sum), for > a total of 11 conditions. The payoff matrices would be as follows: > Group Size Candidate > Scenario 1 (zero-sum) A B C > a 4 4 1 0 > b 2 0 3 2 > c 3 0 2 4 > Total payout 16 16 16 > > Scenario 2 (positive-sum CW) A B C > a 4 3 1 0 > b 2 0 3 1.5 > c 3 0 2 3 > Total payout 12 16 12 > > Scenario 3 (negative-sum CW) A B C > a 4 4 0.5 0 > b 2 0 3 2 > c 3 0 1 4 > Total payout 16 11 16 > > > These scenarios present both a chicken dilemma between candidates B and C, > and a contrast between a strong (for positive sum) or weak (for negative > sum) Condorcet winner (candidate B). > > To save money and subjects, the four voters of voter group A could be > represented by 2 actual experimental subjects with double-weighted votes. > Thus, the total subjects necessary for a full set of 14 experimental > conditions would be 98. Ideally, we'd run at least one scenario for each of > the voting methods twice; thus we could also use up to 140 subjects. For 98 > subjects, the total payout would be at most 234 monetary units, but probably > under 200. Here in Guatemala, for a 30-minute experiment like this, those > monetary units could probably be 1-2 quetzales ($0.13-$0.26); in the US, > they would have to be $1-2, for a total payout cost of up to $400. Again, > I'd put up that money. > > If you're interested, we'd have to talk about creative ways to get subjects > and space. The best would be if there were someone here who is an > undergraduate (at an undergrad-focused college) or a graduate student (at a > university), who could get access to a pool of psych-101 student guinea > pigs. Obviously, even then, getting a hundred subjects is not just a matter > of asking for them; but with some coordination, I think we could manage it. > > Once the experiment was done, we could write it into a paper, including > also mathematical discussion and proofs, simulations, and historical > analysis; and I'm confident that we could get published. Yes, the statistics > would be weak, perhaps too weak to really discern behavioral differences > between Approval, Range, and MJ even if such differences exist; but I'm sure > that no matter what happens, the results would advance our knowledge. I > don't care whether I am counted as the primary author on that paper. > > Jameson > > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
