# [EM] FBC survey & Simmons latest lottery method

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Sat Nov 19 09:57:56 PST 2005

```Warren,

--- Warren Smith <wds at math.temple.edu> a écrit :
> (You can also consider 99% coin-bias
> to get nearly the same effect... even 50% coins still are a counterexample
> witht he right candidate utilities...)  So betraying F is the way to make F win!
>
> So... thanks to this counterexample, I disagree Simmons' method obeys FBC.

I think it would be helpful for you to write out the definition
of FBC that you want to use. It sounds like you want to use
utilities, but I don't know of an FBC definition that uses them.

If I understand Ossipoff's definition, it says that if there is
a way to vote whereby your favorite is beneath other candidates,
and the winner is (with any positive probability) X, then there
also must be a way to vote such that your favorite isn't beneath
other candidates, and there is positive probability that either
X or some candidate better than X is elected.

I like to say that lowering one of your favorites (i.e., the
candidates you rank equal-first) must not increase the probability
that the winner is one of these candidates.

I think it's important that the FBC definition mainly anticipate
strategies that a cautious voter is likely to think of and try.
That's why I prefer a definition that is only concerned with
lowering favorites.

With other definitions, it's possible that that, although the
best outcome is achieved using favorite betrayal, the precise way
to do it would realistically be beyond a voter's ability to guess.

Kevin Venzke

___________________________________________________________________________
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

```