[EM] Viability (finding the odds after you've voted)

[Kevin Venzke]

Forest,

I tried out my suggestion and it worked incredibly badly.  The given odds
seemed very exaggerated for unviable candidates; it suggested to almost
every faction that its expectation was near midrange.  I tinkered with exponents
to exaggerate higher-ranked candidates, but I didn't get much improvement.

However, I wonder if, using MPCR as you've defined it, except that the viability
calculation each round took into account the total number of points awarded by
a ballot, MPCR might be made more clone-proof.  (It would not make any difference
in my trials, though (every faction votes one candidate per rank), so I can't test 
it.)

I think you understand what I mean by "clone-proof."  As it is, I wonder if an
ideology would have an advantage by running clones, and differentiating their
slots.  They presently get comparable viability per candidate, and could force
other factions to merge their own candidates too soon.

 --- Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> a écrit : 
> And we know that we have the right rule for the three slot ballot!

I wonder if it still works with more than three candidates for those ranks?
Maybe you've already thought this through, but might there be a clone problem?
I'll think about this.

> So in the case of the Three Slot Max Power Cardinal Rating method, we
> could justly claim the name MVP, the "Max Voting Power" method.
> 
> Note how this corresponds with the technical definition of voting power,
> the probability of your vote being pivotal.

OK, but I'm trying to remain optimistic that we'll figure out "Better Than
Expectation" at some point.

Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr


___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com