Algorithmic Asset Voting: Difference between revisions

m
Line 50:
 
'''26 A
'''26.5 C
26.5 D'''
21 S
Line 111:
== Resisting Favorite Betrayal and burying ==
 
In some cases, it's possible to use the concept of AAV to reduce Favorite Betrayal incentive. For example: <blockquote>48 A>B
 
In some cases, it's possible to use the concept of AAV to reduce Favorite Betrayal incentive. For example: <blockquote>48 A>B
 
5 B
 
47 C </blockquote>There's a Condorcet cycle here between all 3 candidates. But note that if the 47 A>B voters vote B>A, then B is the Condorcet winner. Notably, there is no way for any other voter to improve the outcome for themselves (the A>B preferring voters can't make A CW and neither can the C>B preferring voters), so B is a strategically stable winner. Using AAV along with a cycle resolution method that would elect C would automatically elect B because of this. This step might be usable solely to shrink the Smith Set at times rather than find a single strategic CW.
 
Another example: <blockquote>6 A>C>B>D
 
2 B>C>A>D
 
3 B>A>C>D
 
2 C>D>A>B
 
2 C>B>A>D
 
5 D>C>A>B
 
1 D>A>C>B </blockquote>C is the CW. But if the top line of 6 A>C>B>D voters vote A>B>D>C instead, then there will be a cycle, and most cycle resolution methods would elect A. With AAV, it's possible to note that such a cycle can be stably resolved in C's favor if every voter who prefers C>A votes C top A bottom. This allows voters to not have to actually vote that way in the election, avoiding any possible two-party domination effects. <ref>https://rangevoting.org/CondStratProb.html</ref>
 
But note that with a Condorcet cycle of <blockquote>1 A>B>C