On Oct 19, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
I did not claim naive-exag-strategy is always rational.
I merely asked what are the consequences of assuming people do it.
In fact, in Australia, it appears at least about 85% of the voters use
naive-exag-strategy with IRV voting -- despite the Lundell claim it is
not rational since IRV satisfies later-no-harm.
That's a peculiar way to put it. Are you suggesting ("claim") that
burial is rational with a LNH method? Surely not that voter behavior
defines rationality.
This percentage is
easily sufficient to prevent third-party candidates from winning IRV
seats. And indeed, in the last 3 Australian house election cycles
(150 IRV seat-elections per cycle) combined, the total number of
third-party candidates elected, was zero out of 450, despite an
average of about 7 or 8 candidates per seat.
It appears real-world voters do not care much about what Jonathan
Lundell considers to be rational. Personally, I wish (and I daresay
he wishes) voters were more like me (him). But they are not.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
