[Election-Methods] a story for christmas

rob brown rob at karmatics.com
Fri Dec 28 09:22:37 PST 2007

Sorry I didn't notice your reply till now....

On Dec 26, 2007 3:30 PM, Jan Kok <jan.kok.5y at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> fine.

No, there was never an option to lock your stuff.  You seem to be trying to
miss the point of the analogy if you are trying to insert such an option,
since that would have no analog in Range voting.  (Unless, of course, you
are trying to take certain elements of my story and apply them in completely
different ways to make a completely different analogy.  Which I suppose
shouldn't surprise me....)

In *my* analogy, "defecting" is gaming the system by taking stuff from
others, which is the analog of voting Approval-style in Range....it is the
thing that the system *implies* you shouldn't do (so some people will feel
that they are being "wrong" or dishonest to do it), but *allows*

Leaving stuff unsecured is a given in this housing complex....it is simply
not an option to lock your stuff from others in the complex.  I'm sure I
could contrive some story element that enforces this rule, but I (unwisely?)
assumed that readers would be able to simply accept it as a given of the
story: in this housing complex, there is no way to secure your stuff (and
hence prevent others from defecting by taking others' stuff), just as there
is no way in Range voting to prevent others from defecting by voting
Approval style.

To drive the point home: the one and only way to defect in the analogy is to
take stuff from others' apartments, which is the analog of voting Approval
style under Range.

In both cases it is optional to be "honest".  One could argue that voting
Approval style under Range qualifies as honest, if you interpret the rules
to say that voting strategically is allowed and therefore intended by
design.  Likewise, one could argue that taking others' stuff in this housing
complex is honest, if you interpret the rules to say that taking others
stuff is allowed and intended by design, as the concept of private property
has essentially been eliminated (which is sort of the idea of communal
living....except here, it is not so clear what you are "supposed" to do).

In both cases (Range voting and semi-communal housing complex), some people
will FEEL dishonest if they act in a certain way.  If those people choose
the option that leaves them feeling honest, they will have a disadvantage
over those that choose the other option.

It all comes down to the psychological perception of what a person is being
asked to do.  A range ballot, by virtue of not being an Approval ballot,
implies to many that you "should" vote sincerely rather than strategically.
In the housing complex, everyone has separate apartments, which implies that
people "should" only use stuff they purchased themselves.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20071228/c388103e/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list