[EM] Fluffy the Dog and group strategy

Craig Layton craigl at froggy.com.au
Thu Sep 13 03:28:39 PDT 2001

>> Truly the campaigns can encourage voters to decrease their support for
>> Fluffy - enough of this and Fluffy properly loses in Condorcet.
>> However, Condorcet is in the business of what the voters say, not what
>> they might have said some other day.
>Well said. As long as the method allows the voters to
>express their preferences honestly (and feel comfortable
>doing so), and counts those preferences in a reasonable
>manner, how can you blame the method for making the choices
>the voters (collectively) tell it to make?

Let me leave fluffy aside.  I don't have my original example but I'll
provide a simple one;

49.2% A>B>C (sincere utilities 100>30>0)
49.3% C>B>A (sincere utilities 100>30>0)
00.5% B>A>C (sincere utilities 100>10>0)

When all of the voters have expressed their preferences honestly, and 99.5%
would prefer a random dice throw between the three candidates over the
actual result, then I think this indicates that there is a problem with the
method.  The fact that this will happen in the best constrained preferential
voting methods doesn't ameliorate the fact that it is still a significant


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list