[Election-Methods] RE : Re: Simple two candidate election

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Mon Dec 24 17:26:54 PST 2007


A quick comment...

--- rob brown <rob at karmatics.com> a écrit :
> I know it's all touchy feely and warms the heart to think the best of
> humans, but my observation of human behaviour aligns quite well with what
> I
> would expect based on how they reproduce.  Altruism obviously
> exists....when
> there is a chance of reciprocation or where convincing others that being
> altruistic has value in itself.  In a secret ballot situation, I'm just
> not
> seeing it.

I see two kinds of "playing nice" here. One is "playing nice" by voting the
way that the election method designer wants you to. I don't think humans
will do this only to please the designer.

The other "playing nice" is voting in a way that is not purely
self-interested. I think humans *do* do this. I just don't believe they
will do it by voting selfishly in a suboptimal way. I believe they will
pick the outcome they want (some mixture of selfish vs. altruistic) and
vote for this outcome as effectively as possible.

To do otherwise (i.e. to weaken their vote) seems to require the voter to
desire to be altruistic, but not trust that they know what options to vote
for in that case. In a public election I guess this would be very uncommon
among people who will actually go to the trouble of showing up to vote.

So when discussing Range I consider it a red herring to ask whether real
voters are selfish or altruistic. The important question is whether voters
believe they understand the implications of the various options. (And are
smart enough and willing to determine an effective voting strategy.)

Kevin Venzke

Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list