[EM] Quick and Clean Burial Resistant Smith, compromise

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 11.01.2022 21:32, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:27 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm
> <km_elmet at t-online.de <mailto:km_elmet at t-online.de>> wrote:
> 
>     On 10.01.2022 01:14, Daniel Carrera wrote:

> No, I understood that part. However, looking at your pseudocode again, I
> just realized that you choose the random ballot once per strategy_iters
> and reuse that ballot for every single voter that did not prefer w_A:
> 
> for 1...strategy_iters:
>         e_B = e_A
>         b_B = random preference order
>         for every ballot B in e_B:
>                 if B ranks c_k ahead of w_A:
>                         B = b_B
>         w_B = winner of e_B according to method M
>                 if w_B = c_k:
>                         then strategy successful
> 
> That makes a lot more sense now. Now I see what the paper means when it
> says that it gets every voter in the strategic coalition to cast the
> same ballot. When I read your first pseudocode I thought it meant that
> every single voter with c_k > w_A would draw a different random
> permutation. So you see why I was confused and why it didn't work. So I
> fixed this, and fixed other bugs. I also followed your advice and
> switched to "impartial culture".

Oh, I don't do that; I make each strategic voter's ballot a different
random permutation. I was just saying that if you would like to be more
true to JGA's results, then he chose one common ballot for every
strategist, and you should do the same.

My impartial culture results are slightly higher than JGA's, which I am
guessing comes from that I don't restrict the strategic voters in that way.

(In addition, impartial culture is not particularly realistic, but it
makes for a good test case for reproducibility.)

-km