[EM] bug in electowiki
Brian Olson
bql at bolson.org
Fri Oct 14 12:03:01 PDT 2005
On Oct 14, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
> I edited the http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/
> Instant_Runoff_Normalized_Ratings
> page
The edit added some mathy stuff about normalization, and this:
> If it were not for the "runoff," then generally the best strategy
> in IRNR[p] is simply to (strategically) plurality-vote, i.e. giving
> all candidates except one a rating of zero. This is true whenever
> there are two "frontrunner" candidates judged to be far more likely
> to win than the others and p is finite (then vote for the best
> among these two), and its truth is unaffected by the runoff by
> induction on rounds.
>
> If p is infinite, IRNR without the runoff would just become
> equivalent to range voting in the range [-1, 1] with an extra rule
> demanding that the best- or worst-rated candidate must have a
> rating with absolute value 1. The best strategy is then the same as
> for approval voting and again this statement's validity is
> unaffected by adding the runoff.
I'm kinda confused about this commentary. I think it doesn't directly
pertain to IRNR, but rather IRNR if you break it.
I'll accept for now that all-on-one is the correct strategy for a
normalized ratings vote. I think I demonstrated that to myself once.
But still, why comment on IRNR without the IR on this page?
Is the L-infinity normal interesting or useful? Divide the ratings by
the infinity-root of the sum of the ratings raised to the infinity?
It's been too long since I studied such things and I can't tell what
that operation would practically _do_ to some data.
I think practically L1 and L2 are all we need.
So, your commentary may be correct, but, um, so what?
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list