[EM] RE : RE : Randomized MCA, new weird voting method idea

[Kevin Venzke]

Warren,

--- Warren Smith <wds at math.temple.edu> a écrit :
> by the way, I should make it clear that I'm not speculating.
> 
> The simulations show that MCA does exactly the same thing
> as approval voting does with huge (99.999%) probability, if
> the number of voters is made large.   
> 
> IEVS reports that MCA is better than approval voting, but the only
> reason for that is because of elections with SMALL numbers of voters.

I don't understand how that is possible... Have you implemented it
so that the voter indicates just a single first preference? Or is it a
true 3-slot ballot?

This is the way I look at it... Imagine that you are a voter in an MCA
election. Say you plan to vote approval-style only. What kind of polling
information could exist that would persuade you to cast a more complicated
vote?

If I'm asked in a poll what I'm going to do with my middle slot, I'd
say I'm not going to use it unless I have detailed information on what
others are doing with their middle slots; otherwise using the middle slot
is neither here nor there and not my best bet strategy-wise. If everybody
thinks like me, there won't be any polling information on this topic. I
think that's the problem that can't be fixed.

Kevin Venzke


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! 
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses 
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com