[EM] Richard's Approval strategy

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>I think it's time to move off this lengthy digression.

Yes, because I think now we both understand that my Pij definition
and the one that Bart posted are just different wordings of the
same definition, and that they both define the same probability.


>The original topic
>of strategy is what we should be discussing.

Yes. Your ZI Approval strategy is equivalent to just voting for
the above-the-mean candidates, a strategy that's been well-known
ever since Weber invented Approval in the '70s. Also, of course
there's no point in doing your ZI calculations when one need only
vote for all the above-mean candidates.

As for your non-ZI strategy, I asked you how you'd get the probability 
differences that it uses--the amount that you increase
i's chance by voting for i, and the amounts by which you decrease
each of the other candidate's chance by voting for i.

Your answer was that it depends on what information is available
to you. I think we all knew that. What I'd asked you for was
some kind of available or plausibly-estimated figures of some kind,
and your demonstration of how you'd use those to get the probability
increments & decrements that your method uses.

So what would be an example of a type of available or plausibly
estimated information about the election, and your method for
determining your win-probability increments & decrements from it?

I'm just trying to find out if you can use your method.

Mike Ossipoff



For instance:
>
>1. We know what the ZI and non-ZI strategy matrices look like for
>approval. The strategy matrix for plurality is the same, but the
>application is different. What conclusions can we draw from those?
>
>2. What does a strategy matrix look like for Condorcet? For Borda?
>For IRV? What conclusions can we draw from those?
>
>  -- Richard
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com