[ExI] Fwd: elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead: Anna Politkovskaja]

[daniel radetsky]

Spike: you forgot

n. Verify that verifications in steps n-k (where 0 < k < n-1) are performed
correctly.
n+1. Verify that step n was performed correctly.
...

On Dec 27, 2007 4:48 PM, J. Andrew Rogers < andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
wrote:

> As a meta-comment, "fair elections" as most people would describe them
> are generally a hard problem, even if every vote is always counted
> correctly.  See: Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem, Duggan-Schwartz
> Theorem, and Arrow's Theorem (among others).


These only apply to ranked choice voting schemes. See Range Voting.


> Manipulability is a basic
> property of the system no matter how you try to re-arrange the deck
> chairs given the current non-negotiable assumptions of democratic
> voting commonly in use.
>

If you assume that certain properties are non-negotiable, and those
properties imply manipulability, then manipulability is guaranteed. But why
should we assume that properties implying manipulability are non-negotiable?
If a property leads to manipulability, that's a sure sign that it ought to
be negotiated.

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071228/6bbae6c0/attachment.html>