Talk:Tactical voting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Jrfisher |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{TalkPageIntro}}
== Beware the "What if?" Scenario ==▼
== 2005 ==
▲=== Beware the "What if?" Scenario ===
One avid EM analyst (who may choose to remain anonymous) has fired the following scenario at several method proposals to apparently illuminate vulnerability to tactical voting. It used to trouble me until I thought about what it would mean in the real world. Once I did that, I realized that it is a preposterous red herring that is not worth worrying about. It is now important to me to explain why so that others encountering this scenario (or its ilk) are not tripped up by it.
Line 38 ⟶ 42:
Moral of the story: If you're not an ivory tower theoretician working on an academic proof, then when confronted with a "What if?" scenario, always pause a moment to consider what it would really mean in the real world. You may discover that it's not worth designing around. [[User:Jrfisher|Jrfisher]] 12:47, 20 Aug 2005 (PDT)
:I offered the above scenario to suggest strategic differences between [[Definite Majority Choice]] and [[Condorcet//Approval]]. Unfortunately, [[User:Jrfisher]] has interpreted my presentation of this scenario as an attack on one or the other method, and believes that I believe the above scenario is realistic. He has since requested that I stop confusing people, and I have agreed. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 21:08, 20 Aug 2005 (PDT)
== 2020 ==
=== C4ES Tactical voting page ===
[[The Center for Election Science]] recently posted an article/whitepaper/whatever about tactical voting on their LinkedIn feed titled "[https://electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/ Tactical Voting Basics]".<ref>The C4ES LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/the-center-for-election-science_tactical-voting-basics-the-center-for-election-activity-6705229714354778112-kWN9/</ref> I have had a chance to read the whitepaper yet, but I'm curious: what is it that [[C4ES]] gets right that the [[Tactical voting]] article on [[electowiki]] is silent about? Is the C4ES article clearer because it's shorter and doesn't get lost in the weeds? Is there anything we need to do in order to make the [[Tactical voting]] article as useful as C4ES's article? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 03:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
== Footnotes ==
<references/>
== Finding clearer names for strategies ==
"Compromise" has a nice, positive connotation that makes it easy for FairVote et al. to downplay it as "not that bad." It even makes it sound like it promotes "moderation" or "compromise" (when it does the opposite)! I prefer "decapitation" (cutting the "head"/top candidate off your list) or "lesser evil"—I've seen both of these in the literature.
Burial has a sufficiently-evocative name, I think (sounds like burying a dead body); which probably contributes somewhat to people's skittishness around Condorcet methods.
Pushover needs a better name (preferably one that highlights just how insane it is that this strategy works in IRV). I kind of want to call it "RNG hacking"...
Compression has an easy-to-understand name; it sounds less bad, but that's because it *is* less bad.
Pied-piper is more familiar to Americans by the name of "raiding."
--[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 02:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
| |||