[EM] Chicken Dilemma--To whom is it a problem?

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 17 07:20:49 PDT 2013

Hi Markus--

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Markus Schulze
<markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

> please give a precise definition of your "chicken dilemma".

You know it isn't just mine. It's well-discussed in game-theory, and
probably in economics.

I'm not speaking of it as a precise criterion. But a problem without a
precise criterion definition is, nevertheless, still a problem.

It's a psychological matter, and psychology isn't precise.

But no maybe game-theorists and economists _do_ have precise
definitions of the chicken dilemma.

> Please give a precise proof that Benham and Woodall are
> immune to this dilemma.

I'd be willing to choose one of the game-theorists' and economists'
definitions of the chicken dilemma, and show that Benham and Woodall
don't have that problem.

At electowiki, I posted my definition of a "Chicken Dilemma
Criterion". At one point I felt that it might not, as
currently-defined, always act as intended by me. If not, it can
probably be fixed. But maybe it's useful as-is.

It can be found by searching electowiki for "Chicken Dilemma Criterion".

I'll take another look at it, and then will probably tell you why
Benham and Woodall pass that criterion.

As I've been saying, I think that Beatpath and Ranked-Pairs would be
the best voting-systems for the Green scenario, if there were no
chicken dilemma. But I feel that there will often be one, and that it
would spoil Beatpath's and Ranked-Pairs' benefit from MMC and the
Condorcet Criterion.

Michael Ossipoff

> Markus Schulze
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list