On Sep 1, 2008, at 0:49 , Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Juho wrote:
This particular example resembles Hylland free riding (it is an
optimized version of it) but there could be also many other
examples, some of which resemble e.g. Woodall free riding. Only in
some special cases this method resembles Hylland. The point is to
evaluate the probabilities and utilities of all candidates and
vote accordingly. If looking for links to Woodall and Hylland,
this approach in a way tries to generalize them under one framework.
If the point is to generalize the various vote management / free-
riding methods under one framework, you should explain why they
seem different. For instance, to my knowledge, Meek would fix
Woodall free riding but do little with Hylland free riding.
Ok, that's a fair request.
If I rank some unwanted candidate Z ahead of my favourite A (Woodall
free riding) then in Meek's method I'm giving a message that I want Z
to be elected and kept in game as long as possible, while in methods
where Z will be eliminated right away I could get away with that and
get a strategic benefit. Meek's method would make also the new free
riding strategy work in a different way (probabilities of the
candidates to become elected would be different).
When using the new fee riding style in Meek's method I would not rank
the worst candidate (Z) ahead of A but could use some other candidate
(e.g. D) for that. This is maybe no more classified as Woodall free
riding (since I want to influence positively on the election of D
instead of only listing an irrelevant candidate first). Meek's method
thus fixes Woodall free riding like problems (where some totally
irrelevant and possibly unwanted candidate is ranked first) also with
the proposed new free riding case.
In the Hylland free riding case the new free riding approach would
just find a new location for A on the ballot instead of not ranking
it at all.
There's a continuum between Woodall and Hylland. If I raise some weak
low utility candidate at top, then I'm close to Woodall. Then there
was the case with D above. And if I raise my second favourite at top
(and drop A reasonably low) then I'm close to Hylland.
Woodall free riding and Hylland free riding can be seen as two
extreme ends of the new free riding scheme. Meek would in this sense
fix some problems at the other end (or actually I'd say Meek's method
is quite natural and neutral while others have a flaw).
The most practical reordering style may not be as radical as in
Woodall and Hylland but just e.g. swapping two adjacent candidates
(assuming that Meek's method is used).
The dynamics look pretty clear to me although my explanation above
was only mediocre (would need more time to find an elegant one).
Meek's method would make the new free riding system behave better.
One would not rank bad candidates at top. With Meek's method the new
free riding style would rather just move (in a rather balanced way)
the good candidates lower in the ballot that have high probability of
becoming elected, and would move those candidates that the voter
_wants_to_promote_ but that need some more help higher in the ballot.
I hope this speculation provided something useful. And I hope I got
the Meek's method dynamics right.
Juho
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
