[EM] Participation & SARC

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

--
>D -  Another example-
>
>46 A
>  2 AB
>  2 AC
>25 BC
>24 CB
>
>99
>
>Using Approval--
>
>A 50
>B 51  (25 BC versus 24 CB)
>C 51

In this example, it's that situation that's maybe less likely
in public elections, where none of the 3 candidates is middle.
In Approval, with 3 candidates, the middle candidate's voters
have no reason to vote a 2nd choice. In this example, the
B & C voters apparently consider the merit difference between
A and {B,C} to be the important one, and those voters have to
reason to expect B or C to be the one that's more winnable,
more middle, or more votegetting.

A loses because 4 of his voters, 8.33% of them, voted for their
2nd choice, believing, presumably, A wouldn't get as many
votes as their last choice. And yet A gets about twice as many
votes as anyone else. So those 4 voters gave the election away
by making a really huge mis-estimate. We shouldn't exaggerate the
likelihood of such a big mis-estimate.

Another thing: Note that the B & C voters all felt that A would
get more votes than their favorite, which is why they voted
a 2nd choice. Then how come 8.33% of the A voters think that
A will get fewer votes than their last choice?

>In real elections even polls will have some margin of error such that some
>voters may not vote *the party line* (the decrees of the party bosses or
>candidates on how to vote).

Sure, but it's a useful approximation to say that the voters
have the same information, and therefore the same predictive
beliefs. Party bosses can't make you vote as they say to, and
most likely your vote will be determined by your predictive
beliefs. Party leaders and others will give advice on voting,
and I expect that some will have reason to give intentional
bad advice, but someone trusted by your faction has done some
polling, then you won't have reason to believe the TV commentators
or big-party candidates when their advice conflicts.

Also, with Approval, each election is useful as a poll. With
Approval, if there's a candidate at the voter median position,
he/she is the only candidate who can win at voting equilibrium.
The results of previous elections will give you an accurate
measure of the parties' votegetting power, and will enable
accurate strategy. And so big mis-estimates are unlikely, and
you won't depend on bad advice. Aside from that, hopefully you
wouldn't trust the advice of TV commentators or party leaders with
a stake in the results.

(A voting equilibrium is an outcome, including the officially
reported & recorded count results, that is consistent with
the predictive beliefs that led people to vote as they did,
producing that outcome. It's assumed that everyone shares the
same predictive beliefs and that those beliefs are near-certain).

Mike Ossipoff




________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com