This kind of modelling simplifies voter behaviour and political space quite a lot, but I found this kind of approach quite useful in simulations in a two-dimensional opinions space. The level of simplification of the candidate strengthening/weakening approach is roughly the same as the idea of assuming voters to have two-dimensional opinions. I used mostly *factors* to modify candidate strength.
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-July/027976.html One can use the strength of a candidate e.g. in combination with strategies so that one can compensate loss of popularity due to recommending strategies to the actual benefits of the strategy. Or in a more basic se-up, just to check e.g. if nomination of some irrelevant candidates could be used as a strategy (and indeed in some situations this seemed to be the case in those simulations). This kind of simplified simulations and simplified models do not give a full picture of what methods are but they are an excellent tool in demonstrating some properties of methods in a way that is not too far from (actually quite close to) what may happen in real life. I think weak and strong candidates are a good and useful approach as long as one remembers that one talks about a simplified model. Juho On 6.11.2011, at 23.12, Kathy Dopp wrote: >> From: Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> >> To: EM <[email protected]> > >> Here's a toy model where the math is easy and you can get some interesting >> results. >> >> -Voters are distributed evenly from [-1, 1] along the ideology dimension. >> -Candidates are represented by an ordered pair (i,q) where i is an ideology >> from -1 to 1 and q is a quality from 0 to 2. > > Such a one-dimensional ideology dimension grossly over-simplifies > IMO.In reality, people do not line up along a simple one ideology > dimension. Political scientists tend to oversimplify, beginning with > Anthony Downs. The mathematics could take into account more than one > issue position or dimension when using spatial geometry to model how > close voters and candidates are to each other. It's on my to-do list > to write up a far more logically coherent way of using spatial > analysis of positions of voters and candidates that would essentially > unify much of the field of voting behavior research -- although > political scientists seem to enjoy carrying on the same debates > endlessly rather than deriving new theory on what they agree on. > Condensing reality down to one ideological dimension, even adding one > quality dimension, grossly distorts the more complex picture of > reality. A unidimensional model cannot even accurately model how > three different persons, say candidates, stand on two different issues > relative to each other or to voters. I think Downs basic approach > makes sense only if his mathematics is repaired to respond to the > multi-dimensional nature of the real world. > > > -- > > Kathy Dopp > http://electionmathematics.org > Town of Colonie, NY 12304 > "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the > discussion with true facts." > "Renewable energy is homeland security." > > Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections > http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174 > > View some of my research on my SSRN Author page: > http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
