Election Data

[seth vidal]

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