[EM] Smith-like sets

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Wed Jan 8 21:56:39 PST 2014

Hi Peter,

There is a problem with your scenarios:

>De : Peter Gustafsson <miningphd at hotmail.com>
>À : List post electorama <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> 
>Envoyé le : Mercredi 8 janvier 2014 15h22
>Objet : [EM] Smith-like sets

>45% GOP-LIB-nohoper1-nohoper2- ... -Random Crazy-GREEN-DEM
>45% DEM-GREEN-nohoper2-nohoper1- ... -Random Crazy-LIB-GOP
>4% LIB-GOP-nohoper1-nohoper2- ... -Random Crazy-GREEN-DEM
>4% GREEN-DEM-nohoper2-nohoper1- ... -Random Crazy-LIB-GOP
>2% nohoper2-nohoper1- ... -Random Crazy-DEM-GREEN-LIB-GOP

>45% GOP-nohoper2-DEM
>45% DEM-nohoper2-GOP
>4% GOP-nohoper2-DEM
>4% DEM-nohoper2-GOP
>2% nohoper2-DEM-GOP

>Adding together groups #1+#3 and #2+#4, we get:
>49% GOP-nohoper2-DEM
>49% DEM-nohoper2-GOP
>2% nohoper2-DEM-GOP
>DEM is the Condorcet Winner.

But, in all three of these scenarios, nohoper2 is the only candidate in the Smith set.

I think that this shows that in any case, the burial had a risk attached. But for the method to be immune to the burial, we would need to exclude the nohoper and crazy candidates, or else not use Condorcet in the last step.

To make a scenario with an artificially large (due to burial) Smith set, I think you would want one of the major factions to be more sincere than the other. It won't work if both major parties are being defeated by the weak candidates.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list