[EM] 0-info approval voting, repeated polling, and adjusting priors

[Jobst Heitzig]

Dear Forest,

I'm not sure what you mean by the red marble thing or how it clarifies
the meaning of the priors in zero-info strategy.

Over the weekend, I did some calculations with different probabilistic
models whose sometimes confusing results I will post in a few hours...

Yours, Jobst


Simmons, Forest wrote:

> What I wrote below doesn't make sense because I got two different
> ideas mixed together.
> 
> I wrote (emphasis added to highlight the mistake):
> 
> 
> Suppose for example, that at each stage a marble is drawn (with
> replacement) at random from a bag containing one red and 999 green
> marbles, and that the first time the red marble is drawn, the winner
> is to be chosen by a lottery based on the current set of
> probabilities.  Suppose further that at each stage the only thing
> reported back to the voters is who won the previous stage.  If two
> candidates tie at some stage, then the tie is broken by coin toss
> before reporting the winner, so the voters don't know about the tie.
> 
> Under these circumstances and from the point of view of the voters
> how would the probabilities evolve from one stage to the next?
> 
> For a more coherent idea, replace the underlined phrase with "by
> approval according to the current approval cutoffs."
> 
> Of course, these cutoffs would be based on the voter estimates of the
> current probabilities.
> 
> The other idea involved keeping the voters informed of an evolving
> default lottery that would be employed if their repeated pollings did
> not meet some condition by the stage the red marble was drawn.
> 
> Forest
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> list info