On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 11:26 -0700, CLAY S wrote: > strategic voting is voting in a less expressive way that increases > your personal expected utility. for instance, the DH3 pathology with > condorcet voting (used by debian, unfortunately) is where a candidate > wins whom virtually everyone agrees is the worst, because they all use > a strategy that is _beneficial_ at the individual level. it's like > the prisoners' dilemma. everyone is worse off because they each use > an advisable strategy. > > an example of strategic voting was when 90% of the nader-supporting > voters voted for someone else (namely gore) back in 2000, because that > had a higher expected value (where expected value is the chance your > vote changes the election outcome times the difference in utility that > causes for you). > > in score voting, you might actually feel that X=10, Y=7, and Z=0 -- > but if Y and Z are the clear front-runners, you can increase your > expected value by voting X=10, Y=10, Z=0. that's more strategic. > > the nice thing about score voting is that it behaves quite nicely even > when people are strategic. here are some links which discuss this. > With no disrespect: Can y'all take this offlist? It's really not on topic to what this list is for. Thanks, -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
