2011/8/4 <fsimm...@pcc.edu> > > > ----- 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. >
This is only true if you define the "hijacking faction" in terms of the ultimate beneficiary, the winner. But a minor faction could hijack another minor faction to shift the frontrunner. I agree, it's unlikely. But the very possibility, to me, rankles more than the average strategy. In fact, I suspect it would open the process to legal challenges. Anyway, I don't see why it's necessary. All it gains you is summability; which is nice, but in the age of fast data pipelines it is not a necessity. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info