[EM] SEC quickly maximizes total utility in spatial model

[Jobst Heitzig]

Dear Peter,

I claimed that SEC...
>>> make sure option C is elected in the following situation:
>>>
>>>   a%  having true utilities  A(100) > C(alpha) > B(0),
>>>   b%  having true utilities  B(100) > C(beta)  > A(0).
>>>
>>> with  a+b=100  and  a*alpha + b*beta > max(a,b)*100.
>>> (The latter condition means C has the largest total utility.)

...to which you correctly replied:
> Still, I have the very strong feeling that that claim is not
> part of your above mentioned paper and also it is not true.

Obviously, I made a typical copy-and-paste error from an earlier post
here. The correct condition under which SEC makes sure that C is elected
in the above situation is instead the following:

	alpha > a  and  beta > b

This means that all voters prefer C to the Random Ballot lottery.

> All these don't make the proposals necessarily look bad in my
> eyes. It looks promising wherever high-value compromises
> exist, and it looks logical they often do.

I think they do exist usually. In the described spatial model they do.

Yours, Jobst