[EM] (no subject)

[Warren Smith]

>Terry Bouricius:
I'm not sure if it is quite at the layman level, but Prof. Nicloaus
Tideman's recent book "Collective Decisions and Voting" has an analysis of
vulnerability to strategic manipulation of virtually every single-winner
voting method that has ever been proposed and concludes that Range Voting
along with Borda and four other methods "have defects that are so serious
as to disqualify them from consideration." (page 238). Range Voting
advocates on this list dispute his definition of "resistance to strategy."
>A somewhat more accessible (and available online for free) analysis of
strategic vulnerability of various methods is in this doctoral paper by
James Green-Armytage ("Strategic voting and Strategic Nomination:
Comparing seven election methods"). He found that Range and Approval were
just about the worst in terms of manipulability.
http://econ.ucsb.edu/graduate/PhDResearch/electionstrategy10b.pdf

REPLY BY WDS:
1.Tideman's book and the flaws in its (poor) notion of "resistance to
strategy" are discussed here:
http://rangevoting.org/TidemanRev.html

2. Bouricius forgot to mention, same way he usually forgets to
mention, that Tideman also found IRV to be "unsupportable."

3.Armytage's ideas & related ones are discussed in puzzle #112 here:
 http://rangevoting.org/PuzzlePage.html
(I actually managed to prove a number of things Armytage could not,
for example.)
However Bayesian Regret is the right yardstick and Armytage's (while
interesting) the wrong one.


-- 
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html