Difference between revisions of "Chicken Dilemma Criterion"

From Electowiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>MichaelOssipoff
imported>MichaelOssipoff
Line 30: Line 30:
 
----
 
----
  
In the chicken dilemma scenario described in the premise of the Chicken Dilemma Criterion (CD) defined above, if B won, then the B voters would have successfully taken advantage of the A voters' co-operativeness. The A voters wanted to vote both A and B over the candidates disliked by both the A voters and B voters. Thereby they helped {A,B} against worse candidates. But, with methods that fail CD, the message is "You help, you lose".
+
In the chicken dilemma scenario described in the premise of the Chicken Dilemma Criterion (CD), defined above, if B won, then the B voters would have successfully taken advantage of the A voters' co-operativeness. The A voters wanted to vote both A and B over the candidate disliked by both the A voters and B voters. Thereby they helped {A,B} against the worse candidate. But, with methods that fail CD, the message is "You help, you lose".
  
 
----
 
----
Line 37: Line 37:
  
 
ICT, [[Symmetrical ICT]], [[MMPO]], MDDTR, [[IRV]], [[Benham's method]], [[Woodall's method]]
 
ICT, [[Symmetrical ICT]], [[MMPO]], MDDTR, [[IRV]], [[Benham's method]], [[Woodall's method]]
 +
 +
----
 +
 +
Because CD is so simple, such a simple situaton, could there be another
 +
simple implmentation of it?
 +
 +
...maybe one that doesn't speak of numbers of voters in the factions?
 +
 +
CD is sufficient, as-is, but here is a non-numerical definition:
 +
 +
== CD2 ; ==
 +
 +
'''Supporting definition:'''
 +
 +
The A voters are the voters who vote A over everyone else. The B voters are
 +
the voters who vote B over everone else. The C voters are the voters
 +
who vote C over everyone else.
 +
 +
'''Premise:'''
 +
 +
1. There are 3 candidate: A, B, and C.
 +
 +
2. If the A voters and B voters all voted both A and B over C,  then C
 +
couldn't win.
 +
 +
3. The ballot set is such that if C withdrew from the election and the
 +
count, A would win.
 +
 +
4.  The A voters vote B over C.
 +
 +
5. The B voters don't vote A over anyone.
 +
 +
'''Requirement:'''
 +
 +
B doesn't win.
 +
 +
[end of CD2 definition]

Revision as of 04:08, 19 January 2014

Definition

Supporting definition:

The A voters are the voters who vote A over everyone else. The B voters are the voters who vote B over everyone else. The C voters are the voters who vote C over everyone else.


Premise:

1. There are 3 candidates: A, B, and C.

2. The A voters and the B voters, combined, add up to more than half of the voters in the election.

3. The A voters are more numerous than the B voters. The C voters are more numerous than the A voters, and more numerous than the B voters.

4. The A voters vote B over C. The B voters refuse to vote A over anyone.

5. None of the C voters vote A or B over the other.

Requirement:

B doesn't win.

[end of CD definition]



In the chicken dilemma scenario described in the premise of the Chicken Dilemma Criterion (CD), defined above, if B won, then the B voters would have successfully taken advantage of the A voters' co-operativeness. The A voters wanted to vote both A and B over the candidate disliked by both the A voters and B voters. Thereby they helped {A,B} against the worse candidate. But, with methods that fail CD, the message is "You help, you lose".


Some methods that pass the Chicken Dilemma Criterion:

ICT, Symmetrical ICT, MMPO, MDDTR, IRV, Benham's method, Woodall's method


Because CD is so simple, such a simple situaton, could there be another simple implmentation of it?

...maybe one that doesn't speak of numbers of voters in the factions?

CD is sufficient, as-is, but here is a non-numerical definition:

CD2 ;

Supporting definition:

The A voters are the voters who vote A over everyone else. The B voters are the voters who vote B over everone else. The C voters are the voters who vote C over everyone else.

Premise:

1. There are 3 candidate: A, B, and C.

2. If the A voters and B voters all voted both A and B over C, then C couldn't win.

3. The ballot set is such that if C withdrew from the election and the count, A would win.

4. The A voters vote B over C.

5. The B voters don't vote A over anyone.

Requirement:

B doesn't win.

[end of CD2 definition]