Hi Jameson,
My perspective is the following:
>>>1. Most real-world elections will have a sincere CW, although that might not
>>>be visible from the ballots.
>>>1a. Those elections without a sincere CW don't really have a "wrong answer",
>>>so I don't worry as much about the pathologies in that case.
>>>2. Therefore, we can divide FBC-violating strategies into two (overlapping)
>>>classes: those which work when there is not a CW among the other voters,
>>>which I will call "offensive" strategies, and which usually work by creating
>>>a false cycle; and those which work when there is no CW among the other
>>>voters, which I will call "defensive".
>>>3. I consider that a method with no "offensive" FBC violations is good
>>>enough. That's why I've used those labels: why would "defensive" strategies
>>>be a problem if "offensive" ones weren't?
>>>
>>>
>>>Having some problems understanding where you're coming from. A defensive
>>>FBC-violating strategy isn't likely going to be
>>>provoked by an offensive FBC-violating strategy. I would expect it to be
>>>provoked by the truncation of other voters.
>>>
>>>If you want to say that it's enough for methods to not be suspectible to
>>>strategies that would necessitiate defensive compromise
>>>from other voters, then I might agree, but that is almost the same thing, in
>>>practice, as saying the method should satisfy FBC.
>>
>>
>>Kevin, I suspect that you're probably closer to the truth than I am on this,
>>because you have more experience twiddling the knobs on your simulator. But
>>your brief assertions here don't really give me enough fodder for me to
>>understand why I'm wrong, if I am.
>>
>>
>>Do you agree with me that lack of a sincere CW will be rare? Do you agree
>>with me that some methods have strategic possibilities which are irrelevant
>>as long as there is a sincere CW who is known as such by most voters? Do you
>>agree that some FBC violations fall into that category?
>>
>>
>>Apparently you do not agree that all FBC violations which start from a non-CW
>>scenario fall into that category; and apparently this is because
>>non-FBC-violating truncation strategies could cause the non-CW scenario. If
>>I've read you correctly on this, you may well be right, but I don't follow
>>all the logic. But even if I have and you are, the questions in the preceding
>>paragraph are more important for the big picture.
>>
>>
>>Jameson
>>
>>
>I suspect I don't understand you more than that I think you are wrong. My best
>guess as to what you are saying involves trying
>to interpret the thought behind your rhetorical question ("why would defensive
>strategies be a problem if offensive ones weren't")
>which seems to me to assume that defensive FBC-violating strategies depend on
>there being offensive FBC-violating strategies.
>
>Let's grant that we only care about the situation that there is a sincere CW.
>I'm not sure how to answer your other questions in the
>second paragraph. Maybe I'll understand their importance after another
>exchange.
>
>I would like to understand what you are referring to when you talk about an
>offensive FBC-violating strategy. You say this strategy
>usually creates a false cycle. Does this strategy also directly betray one's
>favorite? Or what do you mean by FBC-violating here?
>If it does betray the favorite, then you seem to be describing a strategy
>where some voters bury their favorite in order to create
>a false cycle (probably by creating a pairwise defeat over that favorite, or
>something comparable in effect) that achieves something
>preferable. But if this was creating a cycle then I have to wonder who was the
>preexisting winner? Surely it would have been the
>favorite?
>
>I hope you see where I am coming from. As far as I can understand, the
>"offensive FBC-violating strategy" is a strange idea, so I
>can hardly see it as the obvious thing to blame for provoking defensive
>FBC-violating strategies.
>
>My impression of what provokes defensive FBC-violating strategies is not based
>on sims. It's just based on asking the question,
>"if there is a sincere CW but not a voted one, what kind of inaccuracies might
>exist on the cast votes?" It could be many things
>besides offensive compromise.
>
>Kevin
>----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
