Dear Kristofer,
you wrote:
> With more candidates, a minority might find that it needs to approve of
> a compromise with just slightly better expected value than random
> ballot, if the majority says that it's not going to pick a "compromise"
> closer to the minority than that just-slightly-bet
Dear Raph,
you answered to Greg:
> > 1) Using Bayesian utility, randomness is worse than FPTP.
> >
> > This is a pretty powerful indict, depending on how often the method
> > has to resort to random ballot.
>
> Hmm, I am not sure how true that is. The randomness in those
> simulations is picking
Dear Greg,
you wrote:
> Nondeterminism is a delightful way of skirting the
> Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. All parties can be coaxed into exposing
> their true opinions by resorting or the threat of resorting to chance.
Actually, if I remember correctly, that theorem just said that Random Ballot
Raph Frank wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The fallback method produces crappy candidates.
People are encouraged to compromise for crappy candidates.
Also note that the method for determining the compromise is
majoritarian (to the extent that appro
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The abilities of nondeterministic methods to generate compromises is
> formidable, but since we speak of utility, I would like to point
> something out.
>
> 1) Using Bayesian utility, randomness is worse than FPTP.
>
> This i
Nondeterminism is a delightful way of skirting the
Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. All parties can be coaxed into exposing
their true opinions by resorting or the threat of resorting to chance.
I don't dispute that. The nondeterminsitc methods I have seen appear
to be designed to tease out a compro
