<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Adam Tarr wrote in part:<BR>
<BR>
Rather than vote for candidates you like more than average (if that is what <BR>
approving means) the more reasonable strategy is to vote for the candidates <BR>
you like more than your expected return from the election. The only time <BR>
that means "vote for better than average" is when you know nothing about <BR>
the polls, which is a ridiculous assumption in a real election.<BR>
<BR>
In the last set of elections I voted in (for the London Borough of Greenwich 2002) I was not aware of any polls being commissioned or published regarding the election locally ( they were simply not important enough for anyone to consider it to be worth doing).<BR>
<BR>
Adam Tarr also wrote:<BR>
<BR>
More generally, if there is a clear front-runner and #2 candidate, then the <BR>
expected return on the election is just on the #2 candidate side of the <BR>
front-runner. So, if my utility for front-runner is 60, and my utility for <BR>
second place is 80, then my expected return on the election is probably in <BR>
the low 60s. On the other hand, if my utility for front-runner is 80, and <BR>
my utility for second-place is 60, then my expected return on the election <BR>
is probably in the high 70s<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I am really not certain that when considering voting options that every voter has such a clear idea of strategy or behaves in a rational way. For example in the 2002 Greenwich elections ( which are held using a plurality at large method in 3 member districts, you have 3 votes and the 3 most popular candidates win) a Liberal Democrat candidate called Harry Potter unexpectedly came top in one ward followed by 3 Conservatives and then the remaining two Liberal Democrats.<I> </I>The only explanation for this result that anybody could come up with is that Mr Potter shared his name with the wizard in the books by J K Rowling (which have been extremely popular in The UK for a number of years).<BR>
<BR>
Also in student elections when I was at university ( held under IRV) in one 4 candidate contest the candidate who came second was somebody dressed in a gorilla suit. His campaign address consisted of jumping about on the stage roaring, grunting and beating his chest and throwing bananas at the audience.<BR>
<BR>
All voters do not think in terms of strategy and utility. Some people will vote for you because you have the same name as a wizard in a children's book and some people will vote for you if you throw a banana at them.<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>