[EM] Proposed experiment

[Jameson Quinn]

One note. I said below/earlier that the scenarios present a chicken dilemma.
I should have noted that, like most real-world chicken dilemmas, this one is
not perfect, as voter group a is not perfectly indifferent between
candidates B and C.

2011/10/21 Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>

> I'd be interested in running an behavioral-economics-type experiment on
> voting behavior. I imagine a game matrix of 9 voters and 3 candidates, with
> each candidate having a known payout for each player. For each condition,
> we'd have a separate group of experimental subjects. We'd run two
> non-binding "pre-election polls" and one "election", and then pay real money
> for the payout. I could put up the money, create the experimental protocol,
> and program a web app to run the elections, but I'd like help actually
> getting diverse sets of subjects. I imagine three payoff matrices (positive,
> zero, and negative sum; see below) and up to six voting systems (approval,
> range, MJ, SODA, condorcet for negative sum, and IRV for positive sum), for
> a total of 11 conditions. The payoff matrices would be as follows:
>  Group Size Candidate
> Scenario 1 (zero-sum) A B C
>  a 4 4 1 0
>  b 2 0 3 2
>  c 3 0 2 4
>  Total payout 16 16 16
>
> Scenario 2 (positive-sum CW) A B C
>  a 4 3 1 0
>  b 2 0 3 1.5
>  c 3 0 2 3
>  Total payout 12 16 12
>
> Scenario 3 (negative-sum CW) A B C
>  a 4 4 0.5 0
>  b 2 0 3 2
>  c 3 0 1 4
>  Total payout 16 11 16
>
>
> These scenarios present both a chicken dilemma between candidates B and C,
> and a contrast between a strong (for positive sum) or weak (for negative
> sum) Condorcet winner (candidate B).
>
> To save money and subjects, the four voters of voter group A could be
> represented by 2 actual experimental subjects with double-weighted votes.
> Thus, the total subjects necessary for a full set of 14 experimental
> conditions would be 98. Ideally, we'd run at least one scenario for each of
> the voting methods twice; thus we could also use up to 140 subjects. For 98
> subjects, the total payout would be at most 234 monetary units, but probably
> under 200. Here in Guatemala, for a 30-minute experiment like this, those
> monetary units could probably be 1-2 quetzales ($0.13-$0.26); in the US,
> they would have to be $1-2, for a total payout cost of up to $400. Again,
> I'd put up that money.
>
> If you're interested, we'd have to talk about creative ways to get subjects
> and space. The best would be if there were someone here who is an
> undergraduate (at an undergrad-focused college) or a graduate student (at a
> university), who could get access to a pool of psych-101 student guinea
> pigs. Obviously, even then, getting a hundred subjects is not just a matter
> of asking for them; but with some coordination, I think we could manage it.
>
> Once the experiment was done, we could write it into a paper, including
> also mathematical discussion and proofs, simulations, and historical
> analysis; and I'm confident that we could get published. Yes, the statistics
> would be weak, perhaps too weak to really discern behavioral differences
> between Approval, Range, and MJ even if such differences exist; but I'm sure
> that no matter what happens, the results would advance our knowledge. I
> don't care whether I am counted as the primary author on that paper.
>
> Jameson
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111021/0a0115e7/attachment-0002.htm>