[EM] New Criterion

[Michael Ossipoff]

Then, with a complying method, it's always possible to get, without using
revesal, a result that's a Nash equilibrium, and--as the MAM winner--is an
ideal majoritarian result.

So,even though, to meet CD, it's necessary to give up SDSC and SFC, a group
of voters can, without reversal, achieve, at equilibrium ,an ideal
majoritarian result.

Michael Ossipoff




On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> wrote:

> Chris and Mike,
>
> your combined comments gave me an idea for a more practical version of
> semi-sincerity:
>
> A method satisfies Semi-Sincerity Relative to MAM or SS(MAM) if and only
> if a semi-sincere modification of the sincere preferences leads to a
> strategic equilibrium ballot set from which the method elects the the
> sincere MAM winner.
>
> This criterion recognizes the superiority of MAM under ideal conditions
> while allowing the method in question to comply with CD, for example.
>
> Suppose our method is Benham, and sincere votes are
>
> 34 A>B
> 31 B
> 35 C
>
> A semi-sincere ballot modification results in a Nash equilibrium for
> Benham that elects B, the MAM winner of the sincere ballot set (not to
> mention the modified set).
>
> 34 A=B
> 31 B
> 35 C
>
> Forest
>
>
> Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 14:46:30 -0400
>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> To: cbenham at adam.com.au,        "election-methods at electorama.com"
>>         <election-methods at electorama.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [EM] New Criterion
>> Message-ID:
>>         <
>> CAOKDY5DYQZtEnaoxoV8NG3OxyFBsw+59x2vpZU8maFZZEuJiqA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>
>> Chris--
>>
>> One comment that I can make right away is that FBC is almost surely
>> incompatible with CD + MMC.  ...just as FBC is incompatible with
>> Condorcet.
>> So, in Green scenario or ideal majoritarian conditions, FBC would be too
>> costly. So, if the 2nd of Forest's criteria, too, is incompatible with the
>>
>> criteria desirable for the Green scenario, that's favorable to a likening
>> of that criterion to FBC. Sure, the differences are great too..
>>
>> Of course you have a point about the desirability of sacrificing one's
>> favorite in order to save the winner under sincere voting.
>>
>> It could be argued that the thing being measured for is the _possibiity_
>> of
>> easily (without reversal) preserving the sincere winner, whether or not
>> it's always desirable, and that that's a matter of interest, just because
>> it _could_ be desirable.
>>
>> Mike
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20140518/38ee5983/attachment.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Election-Methods mailing list
>> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 119, Issue 18
>> *************************************************
>>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20140520/93731090/attachment-0002.htm>