[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
> > strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
> > Cloneproof SSD is supposed to provide this.  If the introduction of
> > default options violates this property, that's something that should be
> > considered.
> No voting system is entirely free of insincere voting.

That's not an interesting characterstic, though.

> However, Cloneproof SSD (as well as our variant which uses the default
> option) is fairly immune.

If by "immune", you mean "resistant to insincere voting as a means of
strategic voting".

Instances of insincere ranking of preferences due to voter error or
confusion do not interest me, as in the general case I expect them to
have a random effect on the outcome.

> In general, people who wish to vote insincerely need to have highly
> accurate predictions of the outcome of the vote to make sure their
> insincere vote doesn't result in an outcome less desirable than a
> sincere vote.

Can you support this with some references to the literature?

> Definition: "insincere vote" -- ranking option A above option B to ensure
> some outcome which doesn't involve A winning.

/me frowns

That's considerably stricter than my definition.  By your definition,
the only insincere vote is one which doesn't rank one's most-preferred
option first.  Since our system only allows one winner per set of
options, we can reasonably conclude that the voter wouldn't mind seeing
any options not ranked first losing.

The strategic insincerity I find of interest involves ranking "further
discussion" over a non-most-preferred option even though one would
actually rather see a given issue settled with the non-most-preferred
option winning.

As Manoj said, artificially inflating your preference of "further
discussion" may be indicative of a non-team-player mindset, at least
when there are at least three options on a ballot.  (It's difficult for
me to imagine a simple "Proposal,Further Discussion" ballot as anything
more complex than a straight referendum.)

Who knows -- maybe a straight referendum would be the best way to
resolve my pending GR, given its omnibus nature and some of the subject
matter.  I'm really not sure yet.

G. Branden Robinson                |    Kissing girls is a goodness.  It is
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    a growing closer.  It beats the
branden@debian.org                 |    hell out of card games.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    -- Robert Heinlein

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: