----- Original Message ----- From: Jameson Quinn Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 4:10 pm Subject: Re: Amalgamation details, hijacking, and free-riding To: fsimm...@pcc.edu Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
> 2011/8/3 > > > So if the true preferences are > > > > 20 A>B > > 45 C>? > > 35 (something else), > > > > the C supporters could spare 21 voters to vote A>C so that the > amalgamated> factions would become > > > > 41 A>C > > 24 C>? > > 35 (something else) . > > > > I can see where it is possible for such a move to payoff, but > it seems > > fairly innocuos compared to other > > strategy problems like burial, compromising, chicken, etc. > > > > Not to me. I would be livid to find out my vote had been > hijacked. All the > other strategies you mention at least use a voter's own vote. > "Highjacking" sounds bad, but it is just one form of "over-riding" votes. At least it doesn't over-ride your first place preference like the compromising incentive twists your arm to do. Every method eventually over-rides various preferences at some point in the process. Compromising is a form of extortion that blackmails you into expressing a false preference. That's the most egregious form. In other words, compromising forces you to either lie or lose. If somebody else highjacks, they lie to take advantage of you, but with much more risk than the liar who buries to take advantage of the CW supporters. For this kind of highjacking to work, the highjacking faction would have to have more than three times the support of the highjacked faction, as can be seen from the above example (which lacking that much support in the hijacking faction gives an obvious first place advantage to A). That kind of superiority is more than enough to over-ride pairwise wins in ranked pairs, river, beatpath, etc. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
