[EM] RE : Re: Majority Criterion poor standard for elections

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi,

--- David Cary <dcarysysb at yahoo.com> a écrit :
> If some want to throw out the Majority Criterion in favor of
> something better, then both the "something" and the "better" deserve
> some scrutiny.  For example, here are some questions:
> 
> 1.  If the Majority Criterion gets repudiated because it is
> inconsistent with Range Voting, why is it that we know that Range
> Voting is better?  Is there a replacement criterion, or is Range
> Voting just being declared self-evident perfection?

Hmm... A couple of years ago I posted results of simulations to compare
sincerely-voted Schulze elections with Approval elections (using various
types of sincerity and strategy). These led me to drop social utility as
an argument in favor of Approval, as I didn't find a (realistic) Approval
strategy that clearly outperformed Schulze.

Approval did seem to clearly outperform sincere Schulze when the voters
knew the identity of sincere SU maximizing candidate, believed this
candidate to have a 90% chance of winning (the other 10% evenly
distributed among other candidates), and then voted using "better than
expectation" strategy. With 5 and 7 candidates, Approval picked a better
candidate 25% and 31% of the time, and a worse candidate under 5% of
the time.

This doesn't seem like a realistic scenario in a public election though.

If you care to look at my original post, it is here:
http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-March/012292.html

Kevin Venzke



	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son interface révolutionnaire.
http://fr.mail.yahoo.com