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