Re: [EM] Re: Election-methods digest, Vol 1 #146 - 9 msgs

[Dgamble997]

Adam Tarr wrote in part:

Rather than vote for candidates you like more than average (if that is what
approving means) the more reasonable strategy is to vote for the candidates
you like more than your expected return from the election. The only time
that means "vote for better than average" is when you know nothing about
the polls, which is a ridiculous assumption in a real election.

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).

Adam Tarr also wrote:

More generally, if there is a clear front-runner and #2 candidate, then the
expected return on the election is just on the #2 candidate side of the
front-runner. So, if my utility for front-runner is 60, and my utility for
second place is 80, then my expected return on the election is probably in
the low 60s. On the other hand, if my utility for front-runner is 80, and
my utility for second-place is 60, then my expected return on the election
is probably in the high 70s


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. 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).

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.

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.

David Gamble