[EM] Replies to Warren's very interesting positions

[Jobst Heitzig]

Hello Warren again.

You wrote:
> >Do you suggest the election system should rather declare one of the
> candidates which are not approved by anyone the winner than to demand a
> new election because of lack of approved candidates. (I certainly don't
> agree to that.)
> 
> --yes I do.  The job of a single-winner election system is to produce a single winner.
> It is not to say "I refuse to do my job"  and then the voters try again.  Assuming
> the voters produce the same votes for the same candidates (and why should they not?
> can you produce examples from history when they have not?) the same thing then 
> happens ad infinitum.  

We won't agree here, so I drop that discussion.

> > 1. Can you explain to me the difference
> >between assigning 64 or 65 points to the middle candidate?
> > 2...there is no such thing as Util(A) or Util(B).
> 
> --1. Why should anybody have to explain it?  Why should you have
> to understand it?  Why should anybody have to feel they understand it?

Well, if you don't think voters should understand the system, then I can't help it.

> 2. There is such a thing.  I have explained how to try to define it in terms of
> money, 

...which is only one of several possible perspectives to look from...
> or brain chemicals, or neuron events.  

Aha.

> But what we definitely 
> know is a false claim is that there "is no such thing."

Do we know that? Interesting. I don't know it since as you know I state the contrary. And if you know it, you should be able to tell me your Util(Bush) and explain it to me, right?

> 3. Furthermore, some Condorcet advocates - including, I think, you recently,
> go too far in trying to deny utility, and thus cause grevious harm to humanity.

Thanks for accusing me of causing harm to jumanity. After all, I was not aware that my words are so mighty.

> For example, you recently stated that if 60 voters say A=60 B=40, while
> the remainign 40 voters say A=0 B=100, then A should "obviously" win.

I didn't say A should obviously win but that A obviously "defeats" B in the usual sense. 
Quite contrary, my favourite method (DFC) will elect A with 60% probability and B with 40% probability in this example.

>  3A. So for example, assuming these are honest voters, and 60% of society
>    votes to have slavery, but 40% (the slaves) vote to end slavery,
>    then according to you, slavery is best for society!  

I never claimed to know what was "best for society". That was you.

> Wrong!
>       I say, by denying the plain fact that utilities differ, you and your
>       philosophy have just caused tremendous harm.

Thanks again. But I guess you know this leads to nothing.

>  3B. For another example: if "B" is the choice: "remove  $20 from 60 voters
>    and give $100 to 40 voters" while "A" is "remove $100 from 40 and give $20 to 60"
>    you would wrongly say A is superior.  

I never said anything was superior. Again, that is your kind of terminology. I only speak of what candidate defeats what other candidate in the usual sense.

> But plainly, since we can now
>    redistribute the money as a postprocessing step, we can see that B is
>    superior.

I don't think so. Even utilitarianists often claim on should seek "the greatest benefit for the greatest number" or something similar. I too think that the number of voters who benefit from a candidate is more important than the sum of the amounts by which they benefit.

> 4. My view: There is no question that utility exists, 

I just posed the question, so that proves its existence. Simple, isn't it?

> and there is no question
> that we want to maximize it.   

How nicely plain your world is. Ever heard of risk avoiding? Why do you think people have insurances? Do you really want to claim everyone aims at maximizing expected (since it's never for sure) utility?

> The problem is not utility, the problem is
> dishonest (whether intentionally or unintentionally) voters who do not SAY their utility.

Ah, so people who have no utility functions are not allowed to vote, is that what you say? Very open-minded indeed...

> I think you, when you unmuddle yourself, will concede that is the case...

I will do nothing of the like. Of what muddle are you talking?

> >Absolutely! I have often argued here that preferences are not linear and
> that we should allow voters to express undecidedness when one of their
> criteria says A>B and the other says B>A, instead of forcing them to
> either vote A=B or weigh their criteria in this case.
> 
> In my view, when voter assigns equal ranks to two candidates, we should
> not interpret this as a statement that both are equivalent but rather as
> a statement that neither is preferred to the other. Writing "A=B" is
> just a handy shortcut on this list, it could also be written "A?B" instead.
> 
> --I disagree.  A=B  and A?B  are two distinct concepts, and I can readily imagine
> voting systems which try to act differently in these two cases, and I in fact
> think they SHOULD act differently.  (In fact "range with blanks" is
> such a system, although in a kind of reduced-strength way.)

That's what I often said. But most members on this list would point out that allowing for arbitrary binary preference relations (as I suggested several times) would complicate the ballot too much.

> Condorcet advocates who try to conflate the two are on dangerous ground.

Your language... couldn't you please calm down a little?

> >So you suggest that when candidate A gives $200000 to 1 voter and
> nothing to the other 99 voters, but candidate B gives $1000 to each of
> the 100 voters, then candidate A should be considered best for society.
> 
> --YES!!  (at least, if utility=money.)

There we are! I will try to swallow this...

> >What is an honest voter with RV? I would like to honestly assign ratings
> to candidates, but I seem to be too stupid for it, sorry.
> 
> --most people are not too stupid (or at least, do not think they are) and 
> accomplish the task basically about as fast as they can write.

Interesting experience, quite opposite to mine. May I ask you how they do it without having to know the difference between 64 and 65 points as you suggested above?

> Furthermore, I think you are capable of estimating expected utility of
> different choices on an arbitrary scale.  And if you are not, then you
> should not be in any decision-making position, especially governmental
> or corporate.

That means I should not be allowed to vote. There we are again! This is even more difficult to swallow...
  
> For example, a decision faced by Bush soon after entering office was 
> whether to change maximum-permitted-levels-of Arsenic-in-water standards.  Different
> maximum arsenic levels lead to different amounts of cancer and health problems.
> We could totally eliminate the health consequences by demanding "at most 1 atom As per
> liter" but the cost would be enormous, and indeed if too much money
> were devoted to this then lives would be lost for lack of money in other areas,
> (for example mass starvation...)
> There is an optimum choice utility-wise here.  Bush & the EPA basically attempted to find it,
> and in my estimate (I checked the math) correctly, but they then were placed
> under political pressure by Democrats and chose to make a revised (now wrong)
> decision.

I'm so glad you know what's right and wrong!

Jobst


_________________________________________________________________________
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle 
Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179