Difference between revisions of "Talk:Definite Majority Choice"

From Electowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
== Majority? ==
 +
 
Please let us avoid the term "majority" when there need not be any majority involved! Look at this:
 
Please let us avoid the term "majority" when there need not be any majority involved! Look at this:
 
<pre>
 
<pre>
Line 21: Line 23:
  
 
:Then choose the winner by [[Random Ballot]].
 
:Then choose the winner by [[Random Ballot]].
 +
 +
== Strategic Vulnerability? ==
 +
 +
If a faction sees a Condorcet paradox looming, can it gain an advantage by insincerely approving of the contender that it expects to defeat pair-wise?
 +
 +
Your polling data: Approval runs narrowly A>B>C, but pairings run  A>C>B>A, so 'B' stands to win under DMC. You're the tactician for faction 'A'. Can your supporters insincerely increase approval of 'C' in order to eliminate 'B'?
 +
 +
If so, then it doesn't even matter if you over-do it: As long as you expect to win head to head, you may hand out approval points with impunity and perhaps steal a victory. Of course, once this leaks out, 'C' will boost 'B', and 'B' will boost you... and the faction controlling the most first place votes will bury its nemesis and prevail.
 +
 +
So, in practice, will DMC degenerate into basic Condorcet with whatever limitations that has? [[User:Jrfisher|Jrfisher]] 19:12, 29 Aug 2005 (PDT)

Revision as of 19:12, 29 August 2005

Majority?

Please let us avoid the term "majority" when there need not be any majority involved! Look at this:

1 A>>B>C
1 B>>C>A
1 C>>A>B
3 A=B=C

Here no "majority agrees" that any candidate should be eliminated! [Heitzig-j]

So ties have to be discussed
No, I didn't talk about ties but about majorities! In the above example, there are defeats but no majorities in the usual sense of more than half of the voters. [Heitzig-j]
I think I sent a suggestion in private email, but here it is again.
The initial page I put up was intended as a public elections proposal. So I wasn't thinking about ties.
In DMC, we eliminate candidates that lose pairwise matches to higher-approved candidates. Call the set of remaining candidates P.
If there is a tie, or if in a public election there is a near-tie (difference of, say, 0.01%), what about forming the superset P*, the union of all P's resulting from all possible reversed close races.
Then choose the winner by Random Ballot.

Strategic Vulnerability?

If a faction sees a Condorcet paradox looming, can it gain an advantage by insincerely approving of the contender that it expects to defeat pair-wise?

Your polling data: Approval runs narrowly A>B>C, but pairings run A>C>B>A, so 'B' stands to win under DMC. You're the tactician for faction 'A'. Can your supporters insincerely increase approval of 'C' in order to eliminate 'B'?

If so, then it doesn't even matter if you over-do it: As long as you expect to win head to head, you may hand out approval points with impunity and perhaps steal a victory. Of course, once this leaks out, 'C' will boost 'B', and 'B' will boost you... and the faction controlling the most first place votes will bury its nemesis and prevail.

So, in practice, will DMC degenerate into basic Condorcet with whatever limitations that has? Jrfisher 19:12, 29 Aug 2005 (PDT)