[Election-Methods] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 42, Issue 77

[rob brown]

On Dec 31, 2007 5:48 AM, CLAY SHENTRUP <clay at electopia.org> wrote:

if you have perfect information about how others will vote, then all
> voting methods are the same.  condorcet.
>

You forgot to include the fact that, perfect information or not, Range
voters might choose to de-emphasize their vote.

Personally, I don't think it is likely many would choose that route, but I'm
more than a bit suprised to see you forget that possibility.

Unless you think that the only reason Range voters would do that is because
of a lack of information.  But that certainly doesn't align with other
things you've said.

> I would guess that a possible downside is that it could make it
> susceptible
> > to cycles (i.e. feedback loops), causing people to keep having to change
> > their vote if they want to be maximally strategic.
>
> which would be no different whether you are talking about any _other_
> method.
>

Not suggesting otherwise.  In fact I think that was my point.  Condorcet
methods handle the cycles in the tabulation, Range and Approval leave them
to be resolved out in the messy world of psychology and the media.

> The upside is that it does not give an advantage to someone for having
> more
> > information about the preferences of others than other voters do, since
> all
> > have the same information.
> > Any thoughts?
>
> yeah.  why are you asking election theory 101 questions to a group of
> people who supposedly study this issue avidly.  this is like a
> question someone asks in the first couple hours of reading a wiki on
> voting methods.  the fact that you feel the need to ask this, as if
> it's not obvious, is shocking.
>

Feel free to point out where approval with real time feedback and randomized
end time has been discussed.

I am not asking for my own information anyway, I am curious how others here
see it, because I get the impression they see it differently than I.
Especially you.  It was not a question about that math, it was a question
about what people see as "beneficial" about a voting method. Value
judgements.

You say range is fine, even though election 101 would tell me that under a
"perfect information" situation it simply converges to approval.  And you
say approval is fine even though election 101 tells me under a "perfect
information" situation it converges to condorcet.

But you hate condorcet....

Hence the question about whether perfect information is seen as a good
thing.


> this is why i called you a "newb" when i first encountered you - and
> you are proving me right again and again by demonstrating
> mind-breaking examples of flawed logic, and an inability to grasp
> elementary aspects of game theory.
>

Well I guess if hurling insults is your MO, so be it (which, for the record,
I would say are ridiculously unfounded).

Given that you worship Warren and his computer made of DNA and his magic
space catapult that he expects to "largely obsolete all present day space
programs" ( http://www.math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/launcher.abs ) , as
well as worshipping evolution-denier and general quack-enabler Ron Paul (
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/why_is_ron_paul_so_popular.php ),
well....maybe I should get a clue and stop wasting my time arguing with you.

Betcha can't wait for the Poundstone book to come out so you can be
immortalized in print as being the crazed missionary of Warren who types in
all caps and calls people to rant them in the middle of the night and might
be in need of a restraining order.  Congratulations.  Maybe the Power
Rangers can promote you to chief of diplomacy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20071231/07ef1cdc/attachment-0003.htm>