Seems to me, much (all?) strategic voting is done by people who are not thinking "I will perform this strategy and the other voters will do nothing" but more like "a zillion voters like me will perform strategy along with me plus there will be many other counter-strategizing voters."
In such a situation, notions of the the (one) "pivotal voter" become pretty irrelevant. Also, in the event there is (with a median-based rating method) "1-sided strategy" then what happens is, the first strategizer moves the median, then the subsequent voters move it more, etc. As a result of that synergy the 456552th strategizer is motivated to exaggerate in his vote even though, say, if he had been the only one, then there would have been zero such motivation. >What does that mean for the strategic dynamics of the chicken dilemma? It > means that, in a very real >sense, those two pivotal voters are the only > ones under "strategic pressure". > --so, that quote strikes me as absurdly far away from and irrelevant to the real world.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
