[EM] manipulation free method?

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Fri Jun 29 20:27:01 PDT 2007

As to exploring - seems interesting.

As to a potential method, I would expect to complain about complexity:
      Plurality - I am unable to express my thoughts in enough detail.
      Condorcet - a good balance.
      This attempt - the other extreme - why do I see this as acceptable, 
as a voter?


On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Forest W Simmons wrote:

> It's true that there can be some incentive to lie about whom you think 
> is the most likely to win, but there is no point in lying about your 
> preference order.
> Here's a version that reduces the incentive to lie about perceived 
> probabilities:
> Each person indicates both a guess as to the winner, and a number alpha 
> between zero and ten indicating how confident they are in their guess.  
> The larger alpha, the greater weight in the community estimate.  
> Here's the kicker.  On your ballot, the probability distribution is a 
> weighted average between the guess you submitted and the community 
> distribution.
> If your guess is bogus, then you wouldn't want it to have much weight 
> on your own ballot, so you will choose a small value of alpha, and it 
> won't influence the community distribution much either.

  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list