[EM] vulnerability to compromise?

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Thu May 18 17:23:46 PDT 2000

Markus said:

> > >                                       but (2) that it isn't
> > > wrong if voting someone higher can make him win or if voting
> > > someone lower could make him lose and (3) that it would be
> > > therefore more problematic if the winner could be changed
> > > with other strategies and (4) that it is therefore not a
> > > "vulnerability fault" when an election method can be manipulated
> > > by burying or compromising.

Of course it's natural & to be expected that voting someone higher can
make him win and voting someone lower could make him lose. There's
no method that can't do that, is there?

It's the usual academic approach to consider any kind of strategy
a minipulation, and to consider it like a kind of cheating that the
method is vulnerable to. I completely disagree with that view of
compromise strategy. The compromise strategist isn't a dishonest
cheating manipulator. He's someone trying to get his rightful due.
The person who does the compromise strategy is the only victim in
that story. That's the problem--that he's strategically forced to
use compromise strategy. I consider the most important criteria to
be the ones that measure how often & how drastically we're
strategically forced to compromise. Also, there are important criteria
about the consequences of using that strategy.

>In my opinion, that's a bad idea. Steve suggests we utterly
>neglect the possibility of IBCM's manipulability when we
>compare manipulability.

I don't think IBCM/DCD is being advocated anymore.

>But if Steve believes that only burying should be considered,
>then he should introduce some criteria to measure the
>vulnerability to burying.

Surely no one's said that the need for compromise strategy isn't

Mike Ossipoff

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list