"Message: 3
"Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 07:44:50 +0100 (CET)
"From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Subject: [EM] Simulation results (Approval, utility, Schulze "efficiency)
"
"Hi all,
"
"I've been sitting on this for a while, but I'm thinking I'll post it "now:
"
"
"Here are some results from the simulation I recently wrote about:
<snip>
Kevin,
Can your sims compare approval results for cases where the ranked voting produces cycles, vs. cases where there are no cycles?
"It's surely a fluke that "Two Evils" outperforms "Zero-Info" here. "I have to doubt that random information could be better than none at "all.
It comes as no surprise that zero-info performed about as well as Schulze in terms of average utility. Also in average utility terms, "two evils" performed worse than zero-info, also no surprise. The results you refer to simply mean that the former will pick the Schulze winner more often than the latter, but when either one misses the Schulze winner, zero-info strategy is more likely to result in an average utility improvement over Schulze than "two evils" is.
I expect a majority of voters to favor the Schulze winner over at least one of the "two evils", except on occasion when there are cycles of 4 (or larger). But I also expect "two evils" to cause fewer voters to approve the utility maximizer (and fewer voters to disapprove the utility minimizer) than zero info would, when the utility maximizer is not the Schulze winner.
I hope that makes sense.
-- Richard
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
