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

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/3/22 Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr>

> 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?
>

Transfers only happen in the case of median ties. So if there is a current
winner, there are no transfers.

>
> 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.
>

It's true that, on further thought, my simultaneous-transfer idea does not
work for more than three candidates. But I still think there are no
ambiguities for three.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110322/093d6845/attachment-0003.htm>