Does VA Schulze violate SEC?
Blake Cretney
bcretney at my-dejanews.com
Tue Oct 6 15:27:44 PDT 1998
Dear Markus,
On Tue, 06 Oct 1998 22:01:01 Markus Schulze wrote:
>The problem with Condorcet[EM] is the fact, that the random-fill
>strategy _always_ works. The random-fill strategy cannot
>back-fire. That means: A voter is _never_ punished for using
>this strategy, but _sometimes_ rewarded for using this strategy.
>
>I would never have criticized Condorcet[EM], if the random-fill
>strategy had worked only on average.
Here is an example of random-filling back-firing with
Condorcet[EM]
11 A
24 B A C
25 B C A
39 C A B
1 C -- this voter is considering using the strategy
Sincere
A B C
A X 50 35
B 49 X 49
C 65 40 X
So the votes against matrix is
A B C
A X 50 0
B 0 X 49
C 65 0 X
65 50 49
The condorcet winner is C
Now, if C uses random-fill
11 A
24 B A C
25 B C A
39 C A B
1 C B A - B A was the random choice
Sincere
A B C
A X 50 35
B 50 X 49
C 65 40 X
So the votes-against matrix is
A B C
A X 0 0
B 0 X 49
C 65 0 X
65 0 49
B is the winner.
So random-filling can back-fire. That doesn't mean it isn't a good
strategy. It usually works, and doesn't require any strategic
information, but it can back-fire.
I don't understand why you aren't more concerned with the average
effect. What if a method had the rich-party problem, but only on
average? It could sometimes back-fire but usually would help to
run more candidates. I would find such a method totally unacceptable.
Blake
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list