[EM] Results, for Jameson (re: MCA Asset)

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Jameson,

(begin quote)
I wrote:
Anyway, the Asset methods stumped me somewhat because I couldn't come
up with a deterministic way to solve the method that doesn't seem to
be contrived. For instance, it's possible that two of the three candidates
are able to transfer. Who has initiative? How do they even know if they
would like to have initiative? Maybe they'd rather do nothing. So, I
didn't attempt to write a method that might not be faithful to the idea.

you wrote:
All "transfers" are simultaneous and represent "copies" rather than bowing 
out. Since the "can I transfer to you" criterion is the same as the "will 
you beat me without transfers" criterion, at least in the 3-candidate case 
there are no issues of initiative or transfer strategy. The pre-transfer 
2nd place has no motivation whatsoever to transfer to the pre-transfer 1st 
place, and no ability to transfer to the 3rd place. So, if transfers are 
happening at all, it's just that 3rd place is acting as a kingmaker 
(pseudo-IRV style); that's simple.
(end quote)

I'm still seeing a problem in that it doesn't seem that the "stat of
interest" is necessarily the place where the median tie occurs. This
means that "3rd place" according to "stat of interest" might actually 
be the current winner of the method, in which case both 3rd and 2nd 
place might be uncertain whether to "transfer." Right?

That is, 3rd place might naively perceive that he definitely shouldn't
transfer. But 2nd place might guess that and transfer to 1st place, in
order to defend against a win by 3rd place. In that situation 3rd place
*might* be better off transfering to 2nd place (if that's seen as 
preferable to 1st place).

It seems like if you're trying to do an IRV-style elimination of sorts
then the metric of interest should be tied to the metric for winning.
Let me know what you think.

Kevin