[EM] Fwd: Is Condorcet The Turkey?

[Bart Ingles]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
> Bart is saying:
>       Starting with: 49 ABC, 2 BAC, and 47 CBA (estimating a near tie).
>       A and C backers could agree to lock out B by truncating to A and C.
>       Then each worries about whether they can expect the other to truncate.
> 
> In this case I like better acting on regard for SELF:
>       Starting with: 49 ABC, 2 BAC, and 47 CBA
>       Translation:  A and C backers each PREFER B over their major enemy.
>       A and C backers hear something UGLY about B
>       Selfish response is: 49 ACB, 2 BAC, and 47 CAB
>       No value in a fragile agreement.  Or, if B remains attractive to
> some As and/or Cs, why would they join the proposed agreement - or honor
> it even if they agreed ahead of time?

Since you have changed the sincere preferences so that B is no longer
the sincere Condorcet winner, your example has nothing to do with my
point.  Although it may well be that in my original example, if some of
the A and C voters have a solid enough agreement, they might be even
better off using the more extreme strategy of order-reversal rather than
simply truncating.  This would likely require fewer cooperating voters
on either side.


> Seems to me the words about expected utility are misleading.  A and C
> backers obviously rank their preference first.  They properly go next for
> whichever remaining candidate is their preference among such.
> 
> Also seems to me that "low-utility candidate" gets misused:
>       ABC says that this voter assigns most utility to A and something
> less - perhaps negative - to C.  Voter has placed B between - PERHAPS
> almost as positive as A; PERHAPS almost as negative as C.

No PERHAPS about it, my example had the voters placing B almost as
negative as C.  Unfortunately the Yahoo site may have destroyed the
formatting.  Here it is again, with underscores in place of the spaces:

_______Liked <-----------------------> Disliked_
49%___A____________________________________B___C
_2%___B______A_________________________________C
49%___C____________________________________B___A




>       Looking at the initial estimates above, A and C could perhaps be
> rated as low-utility with some voters rating A or C as high-utility and
> others giving each the opposite rating.  B could possibly be rated as
> moderate-utility, for noone has assigned B last choice.

Well, I could have made B the voters' last choice, but then my example
wouldn't