[Election-Methods] a story for christmas

Jan Kok jan.kok.5y at gmail.com
Wed Dec 26 15:30:21 PST 2007

On Dec 26, 2007 3:18 PM, rob brown <rob at karmatics.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2007 2:11 PM, Jan Kok <jan.kok.5y at gmail.com> wrote:
> > With RV, you can weaken your vote (let others "take advantage" of
> > you). But it's STRICTLY VOLUNTARY.
> >
> Wow, I thought I covered that.  Didja miss it?  Here:
> Locksmith's argument: "The system is perfectly fair.  Everyone has equal
> opportunity to take other people's property, so no one is at a disadvantage"
> Same exact thing.  STRICTLY VOLUNTARY for residents to not raid each other's
> apartments.

No, NOT the same thing! It's STRICTLY VOLUNTARY for you to leave some
of your stuff unsecured. If you want to lock up all your stuff, that's

You yourself observed earlier that in the choice between A.)
income-proportional taxation and B.) the scheme to tax people whose
last names begin with A-F double and save everyone else $1, that most
people would vote for the first option. In other words, people don't
always vote 100% selfishly.

Ever hear of welfare? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
Unemployment insurance? More examples of a majority (apparently)
supporting schemes that benefit a minority but are a net loss for most
people. E.g. most people would be better off putting their retirement
money into an ordinary savings account than paying into Social
Security. The savings account would give better returns.

If you forbid people from voting intermediate values, then the only
other option people have is to vote 100% option A or 100% option B. In
the apartment analogy, people can either lock their doors, or leave
their doors wide open with a note for people to help themselves. (It's
still an awkward analogy.)

Actually, your majority vote scheme allows voting an intermediate
value, by abstaining. But then sometimes it seems you don't want to
allow voting intermediate values... Be consistent, will ya? :-)

- Jan

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list