[EM] range voting, properties with strategic re-voting, and utilitarianism

Jobst Heitzig heitzig-j at web.de
Tue Aug 30 14:56:00 PDT 2005


Dear Warren!

You wrote:
> In particular, since this thread came from a discussion of the DMC condorcet-approval hybrid
> voting method,  I point out that I do not believe DMC is   cloneproof[strat2-revote]  either!

What, exactly, is the definition of cloneproof[strat2-revote]?

> --They understand the system fine.   Range voting is very easy to understand, easier than 
> DMC in fact.  What they do not understand, is utility values!

I guess that's because you cannot easily understand what doesn't exist.

> But DMC and all other systems also have that same problem - voters have
> trouble understanding utility values and hence have trouble choosing either their most honest,
> or most strategic vote.   In fact in DMC (or more simply, approval voting)
> to choose your most strategic vote, you have to know the utility values
> of the candidates.  
> If you merely know the ordering of those values, that is insufficient
> information to choose the most-strategic approval-vote!

Nope. As I'm not an expected-utility-maximizer I prefer to vote
according to Weinstein's strategy and approve of every candidate above
the median of my priors.

> So in fact, you are trying to pretend this problem is absent in DMC, but you are wrong.

I don't pretend such a thing. I think also specifying approval is
already a non-trivial task for voters because of the vagueness of
"approval". But it is still far easier for me to say whether I approve a
candidate than to assign a cardinal rating to him.

> It is present everywhere.  As a first step toward progress you need to admit the true
> state of affairs - which is utilitarian and that cannot be escaped, sorry - and 
> then go on from there.

So nice that you know the truth. It should help you get out of your
utilitarian trap.

> --yes we know it.  If I define a quantity, or merely show it can be defined, then
> we know a definition exists.

I don't question the definition but the existence of cardinal utility.

>>And if you know it, you should be able to tell me your Util(Bush) and explain it to me, right?
> 
> 
> --wrong.  Just because a quantity exists does not mean I can explain it to you.

So you get to that value in some miraculous way you cannot explain?

> For example, I think we both agree that a first counterample to the Riemann hypothesis exists
> (where if the RH is true then the "first counterexample" is "infinity").
> But in spite of this agreement it exists, I think you cannot tell me its
> value.  (If you can, please do...)  

So, if you cannot tell the value, how can you require voters to submit
their ratings?

>>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?
> 
> 
> --We are revisiting an old debate (my side is called the "Bayesians" and it is generally 
> agreed in the statistical community that my side long-ago won).

I would rather say your side is called the utilitarians and the question
has nothing to do with statistics but with descriptive sociology: it is
about what people actually do.

> Anyhow.  The answer to the insurance question is that the only reason insurance is
> a good idea, is that utilities of the same event differ for different people.
> 
> For example.  Suppose you are in a car crash and turn into
> a paraplegic. That is an event of huge utility (but low probability) to you.    In fact it
> might cost you $1 million, which you do not have.
> However, from the insurance company's point of view this is an event of small
> expected utility.   The point is, to a poor person, $1000 has larger
> utility than $1000 has to a rich person (or insurance company).
> If you are rich and already have many $millions, then you are foolish to insure
> yourself against car-crash-paralysis.  Your thinking now is the same as
> the insurance company's.
> 
> Hmm.  I am not saying this very well.  But the point is, the whole reason
> insurance exists is that utilities differ among different people, causing
> expected utilities to differ.  In fact this is the
> whole reason for every economic transaction.  This is not at all incompatible with the
> Bayesian utilitarian viewpoint.

OK, I will have to think about this a bit longer :-)

> --I do not know how they do it.  I merely know I did a range voting exit poll of 122
> real-world voters in 2004, and this is what happened.  You can read about it
>    http://math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html   #82.

I will have a look at this, too.

> Obviously by carrying on this debate you are not directly causing harm to humanity, but
> your wrong ideas continually do cause tremendous harm to humanity, 

You should really stop this or I'll request to put your postings on
moderation.

Yours, Jobst





More information about the Election-Methods mailing list