[EM] Jameson: I thought you said that people can safely rate sincerely in MJ.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Jameson:

I'd said:

> Say my sincere ratings are:
>
> x: 100
> y: 90
>
> (other candidates considerably lower)
>
> Your sincere ratings are:
>
> y: 100
> x: 90
>
> (other candidates considerably lower)
>
> x and y are similar, but different enough to be supported by
> different factions.
>
> This situation is hardly unusual.
>
> My ratings:
>
> x: 100
> y: 0
>
> Your ratings:
>
> y: 100
> x: 90
>
> Guess which of those two is more likely to win.
>

You replied:


Neither. Once people are strategizing as you are, chances are high of a
chicken dilemma crash, and the other extreme (A?) will win.

[endquote]

Sorry, but you misunderstand. The assumption was that you rate sincerely.

You said that it takes a big majority of strategizers to defeat sincee voters.

I've just told how strategizers can defeat an equal number of sincere voters.

So make up your mind: Do you want to rate sincerely in MJ or not?

But, if you're saying that MJ has the co-operation/defection problem, the
chicken dilemma, then you're right about that.

For that reason, it is no improvement over Approval.

Mike Ossipoff

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120210/dce6edc7/attachment-0002.htm>