<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Limelike,<br>
<br>
Can you please define and explain the "decapitation" strategy? I
haven't heard of it.<br>
<br>
And can you elaborate a bit on this? :<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>IRV is a good example of this. It's <i>usually</i> not
susceptible to strategy (in the IAC model), but I think of it
as one of the most strategy-afflicted methods on this list.
It's vulnerable to some particularly-egregious strategies
(decapitation), ones that are complex or difficult to explain
(pushover), and many strategies [that?] don't have a simple
defensive counterstrategy available (like truncation).</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Chris B.<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/04/2024 2:31 am, Closed Limelike
Curves wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+euzPjC5uiTZLtptS3AOj3LhyWbBgt5p=t3n1LJ9yiyJgwj7Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Kris, thanks for the results! They're
definitely interesting.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">That said, I'm not sure how useful a metric raw
probabilities provide; I don't think they provide a very
strong measure of how <i>severely</i> each system is affected
by strategy. Missing are:
<div>1. How much do voters have to distort their ballots? Is
it just truncation, compression (as with tied-at-the-top),
or full decapitation?<br>
</div>
<div>2. How hard is it to think of the strategy?
Counterintuitive strategies (e.g. randomized strategies or
pushover) require large, organized parties to educate their
supporters about how to pull it off. This could be good or
bad depending on if you like institutionalized parties.
Good: sometimes people can't pull it off. Bad: this creates
an incentive for strong parties and partisanship. See the
Alaska 2022 Senate race, where Democrats pulled off a
favorite-betrayal in support of Murkowski to avoid a
center-squeeze.</div>
<div>3. Is a counterstrategy available?</div>
<div>4. How feasible is the strategy (does it involve many or
few voters)?</div>
<div>5. How bad would the effects of the strategy be? Borda is
bad not just because it's often susceptible to strategy, but
because it gives turkeys a solid chance of winning.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>IRV is a good example of this. It's <i>usually</i> not
susceptible to strategy (in the IAC model), but I think of
it as one of the most strategy-afflicted methods on this
list. It's vulnerable to some particularly-egregious
strategies (decapitation), ones that are complex or
difficult to explain (pushover), and many strategies don't
have a simple defensive counterstrategy available (like
truncation).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A low-probability but occasionally high-impact strategy
might be the worst of both worlds; voters get lulled into a
false sense of security by a few elections where strategy
doesn't matter, then suddenly find a candidate they dislike
elected because they failed to execute the appropriate
defensive strategy.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>