Anonymous user
Essential Questions: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 33:
++ + ? ++ 0
to get rid of the lesser-of-2-evils problem
++
to gain detailed information about voters' preferences
Line 44:
* What information should be asked for and used?
SR JH JG KV MO
Pairwise preference information (e.g. rankings) should be used
++ + ++ + ++
Line 58:
+ ++ ? -- ?
It should be possible to rank X over Y and Y over Z without the need to rank X over Z
-- + -- -- --
* How should this information be interpreted?
Line 84:
++ ? ++ + --
A Beaten-By-All Loser must not win unless s/he is an Approval Winner
-- ++ -
Beaten-By-All Losers must have winning probability less than 1/2
+ + + +
Approval Losers must not win
- - -- --
An Approval Loser must not win unless s/he is a Condorcet Winner
+ + -- --
* What other special properties should the winner have?
SR JH JG KV MO
The winner must belong to the Smith/GeTChA/Top Set
++ - ++ - --
The winner must be top on at least one ballot
-- ? 0 0 --
* What effects should certain manipulations have?
SR JH JG KV MO
Raising X on one ballot without changing anything else must not decrease X's winning probability
++ ++ + ++ +
Adding a ballot which only ranks X must not decrease X's winning probability
++ ++ ? + +
Adding a ballot saying "X>(whatever)" must not decrease X's winning probability
++ ? ? + --
Changing a ballot which only ranks X to "X>(whatever)" must not decrease X's winning probability
-- - ? + -
Changing a detail "X>Y" to "Y>X" on one ballot should be unlikely to change the winner from W to Z
++ + ? 0 +
Cloning must not affect the other candidates' winning probabilities
++ ++ + + -
Nominating "noise" candidates which are not liked much should be unlikely to change the outcome
++ + + ++ +
* Questions of trade-off
SR JH JG KV MO
Freedom of preference expression is more important than anti-strategic properties
- + ? ? --
Efficiency is more important than simplicity
++ ? + ? --
| |||