[EM] bug in electowiki

[Brian Olson]

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/