[EM] Amalgamation details, hijacking, and free-riding

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/8/4 <fsimmons at pcc.edu>

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jameson Quinn
> Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 4:10 pm
> Subject: Re: Amalgamation details, hijacking, and free-riding
> To: fsimmons at pcc.edu
> Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>
> > 2011/8/3
> >
> > > So if the true preferences are
> > >
> > > 20 A>B
> > > 45 C>?
> > > 35 (something else),
> > >
> > > the C supporters could spare 21 voters to vote A>C so that the
> > amalgamated> factions would become
> > >
> > > 41 A>C
> > > 24 C>?
> > > 35 (something else) .
> > >
> > > I can see where it is possible for such a move to payoff, but
> > it seems
> > > fairly innocuos compared to other
> > > strategy problems like burial, compromising, chicken, etc.
> > >
> >
> > Not to me. I would be livid to find out my vote had been
> > hijacked. All the
> > other strategies you mention at least use a voter's own vote.
> >
>
> "Highjacking" sounds bad, but it is just one form of "over-riding" votes.
>  At least it doesn't over-ride your
> first place preference like the compromising incentive twists your arm to
> do.  Every method eventually
> over-rides various preferences at some point in the process.  Compromising
> is a form of extortion that
> blackmails you into expressing a false preference. That's the most
> egregious form.
>
> In other words, compromising forces you to either lie or lose.  If somebody
> else highjacks, they lie to
> take advantage of you, but with much more risk than the liar who buries to
> take advantage of the CW
> supporters.
>
> For this kind of highjacking to work, the highjacking faction would have to
> have more than three times the
> support of  the highjacked faction, as can be seen from the above example
> (which lacking that much
> support in the hijacking faction gives an obvious first place advantage to
> A).  That kind of superiority is
> more than enough to over-ride pairwise wins in ranked pairs, river,
> beatpath, etc.
>

This is only true if you define the "hijacking faction" in terms of the
ultimate beneficiary, the winner. But a minor faction could hijack another
minor faction to shift the frontrunner.

I agree, it's unlikely. But the very possibility, to me, rankles more than
the average strategy. In fact, I suspect it would open the process to legal
challenges.

Anyway, I don't see why it's necessary. All it gains you is summability;
which is nice, but in the age of fast data pipelines it is not a necessity.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110804/3ff8d654/attachment-0004.htm>