Author: Roger
Date: 11:06:56 01/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 01:42:19, KarinsDad wrote: > >On the surface, this type of thing sounds good, but it does not work. > >For example, say you have "two camps" as you state above. Most people in camp >one will vote for their favorite person and against their least favorite person. >The same will happen in camp two. > >Hence, the person who would have received a 60% support suddenly gets 15% of the >votes. Another person who would have gotten a 55% support suddenly also gets 15% >of the votes (since these are the two big candidates from opposing camps, they >also get the majority of negative votes). > >And hence, instead of these two individuals (who may be perfectly fine >candidates with different platforms) end up in 5th and 6th place respectively >and three other people with a 20% to a 35% support end up as moderators. > >I think I would prefer people with differing platforms than people who very few >people vote in. > >KarinsDad :) The idea is to minimax likes and dislikes. Your example is perfect. If you have a highly polarized situation, then you two camps, by definition. Each camp LOVES its candidate and HATES the candidate of the opponent camp. If either camp were to win control, the members of the opposite camp would be in an uproar, and would cause trouble, or might leave the group (note that I am not saying that these things are inevitable given a polarized group, I am saying that this is the definition of polarized). Consequently, the two groups tend to cancel each other out, and candidates that are acceptable to all sides move forward. After all, the members from the opposing camps are minimaxing their dislikes, too. The candidates may indeed be perfectly fine, morally upstanding people with high IQs, but not from the perspective of their respective opposing camps. :) Roger
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.