[EM] A different "strategyproofness" notion

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 19, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Warren Smith wrote:

> I did not claim naive-exag-strategy is always rational.
>
> I merely asked what are the consequences of assuming people do it.
>
> In fact, in Australia, it appears at least about 85% of the voters use
> naive-exag-strategy with IRV voting -- despite the Lundell claim it is
> not rational since IRV satisfies later-no-harm.

That's a peculiar way to put it. Are you suggesting ("claim") that  
burial is rational with a LNH method? Surely not that voter behavior  
defines rationality.

> This percentage is
> easily sufficient to prevent third-party candidates from winning IRV
> seats.  And indeed, in the last 3 Australian house election cycles
> (150 IRV seat-elections per cycle) combined, the total number of
> third-party candidates elected, was zero out of 450, despite an
> average of about 7 or 8 candidates per seat.
>
> It appears real-world voters do not care much about what Jonathan
> Lundell considers to be rational.   Personally, I wish (and I daresay
> he wishes) voters were more like me (him).  But they are not.