[EM] Manipulation Resistant Voting

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at t-online.de
Sun Jul 18 01:48:11 PDT 2021

On 7/18/21 5:30 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> On 07/17/2021 5:12 PM Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons at outlook.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> The Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem states roughly that every
>> deterministic voting rule is manipulable, except possibly in two cases:
>> if there is a distinguished voter who has a dictatorial power, or if the
>> rule limits the possible outcomes to two options only.
> Could someone demonstrate here how, well outside a cycle, an
> insincere  vote can bring in a tactical advantage with a Condorcet rule?
> Say when would it be advantageous to bump your Number 2 to Number 1?
> Or when would it be advantageous to bury your Number 2?
> And without going anywhere near a cycle.

There are two cases where it would be beneficial to do strategy.

Number one is when there is currently a CW, but a faction can alter its 
votes to create a cycle. Then it's beneficial if they prefer the cycle 
tiebreaker winner to the CW. (Or vice versa, for that matter)

Number two is where there is a cycle and the tiebreaker itself is 
vulnerable to strategy.

If the voters are constrained so that they can only submit ballots which 
in aggregate makes a CW, then every Condorcet method passes IIA (since 
if the CW is removed, it's not an irrelevant candidate, and if someone 
else is removed, the CW remains the CW). I think, though I'm not sure, 
that this also makes it strategy-proof.

My point, though, is that you don't just have strategy behavior inside 
the cycle domain, you also have strategy by deliberately pushing the 
method into (or out of) a cycle.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list