<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/10/12 Clay Shentrup <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clay@electology.org">clay@electology.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:04:13 AM UTC-7, Jameson Quinn wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>In that sim, Range elected 13279/29999 CWs, and Median elected 12472/29999. This is a significant difference, but not a huge one. On the other hand are two effects:</div>
<div>1. Range's greater strategy incentive</div><div>2. The tendency for voters to polarize, giving exactly one of the two frontrunners an <i>honest</i> rating near zero. This is a <i>separate</i> effect from strategic exaggeration. If true, this tendency increases the probability that an honest median vote is strategically strongest, but does not do as much for Range.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>These are both not true. The strategy with MJ is to polarize, to maximize the chance that (if your score is the median) you increase or decrease it as much as possible (up to or down to the next closest score).</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div> Warren and I had a long technical discussion about strategy incentive in MJ versus range. He did some clever calculations, and I picked holes in them, and we repeated it for several rounds. At the end we hadn't quite completely converged on a consensus, but we both agreed that Range had a greater strategy incentive than MJ. That result seems more robust than a bald assertion from you.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The point is, even with zero information on a particular candidate, you have a pretty good historical benchmark for the median scores of the first and second place candidates. Outside of that range, you have a safe leeway to be honest. And many voters (more than chance) have strong enough opinions about the frontrunners that they already honestly straddle that range.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><br></div><div>And it seems that MJ reacts much worse to such plausible behaviors.</div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>??? What are you even talking about? If everyone exaggerates, MJ and range are identical; they're both approval. And if a fixed X% of voters exaggerate, it has a bigger effect on Range than MJ; that's an implication Warren's result that I mentioned above. So you're 180 degrees wrong here.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><br></div><div>Why do these myths about strategy resistance with MJ persist?</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></blockquote></div><br><div>No comment.</div><div><br></div><div>Jameson</div>