[EM] Manipulability stats for (some) poll methods

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 05/15/2024 2:30 PM EDT Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 2024-05-15 17:04, Filip Ejlak wrote:
> > śr., 15 maj 2024, 10:47 użytkownik Michael Ossipoff 
> > <email9648742 at gmail.com <mailto:email9648742 at gmail.com>> napisał:
> > 
> >>     Yes, then, as you suggest, “manipulability” doesn’t tell us anything
> >>     of interest. I agree.
> > 
> >>     Then how much do those manipulability numbers mean, in regards to
> >>     the strategic merit of the methods. Nothing?
> > 
> > 
> > I can't agree at all. IMO the primary goal of a good voting method is to 
> > make voters not regret voting honestly.

Yes.  But it also has to be perceived by Joe Sixpack as fair and "right".

The method needs to be principled and these principles few in number and concise in expression.

> > While it's useful to be able to 
> > use a defensive strategy after analysing expected poll outcomes, 
> > frontrunners etc., the best voting method would be the one that does not 
> > create the need to take these things into the account at all.
> > Chances of being able to vote honestly, with no strategic burden to 
> > bear. That's what the manipulability numbers are about.
> 
> Thank you for saying that much more succinctly than I did.
> 

That says something.  (I have credited Kristofer before for succinct analytical judgements and statements.)

> Although I would say that winner quality given honesty also matters :-) 
> At least to avoid the kind of outcomes that lead people to repeal the 
> method.

I dunno how to measure, in a non-partisan manner, "winner quality".

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.