[Election-Methods] utility theory lesson for a very confused rob brown

[Don&Cathy Hoffard]

See comment below:

 

Don Hoffard

  _____  

From: thebrokenladder at gmail.com [mailto:thebrokenladder at gmail.com] On Behalf
Of CLAY S
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:52 PM
To: Don&Cathy Hoffard
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] utility theory lesson for a very confused
rob brown

 

>>On Jan 4, 2008 10:34 PM, Don&Cathy Hoffard <dchoffard at verizon.net> wrote:

What happened to the concept of one-person one-vote.

>A superior concept is "best average happiness" of the voters. 


I believe that the concept is "greatest Happiness for the GREATEST NUMBER"

If we had only used greatest happiness we would let Bill Gates vote and no
one else. Or to have only land-lords vote, or have those who make more than
$200,000 vote.

Everyone should be able to vote and be treated equally (Greatest number).
The U.S. Supreme Count has traditionally used the concept of "EQULLITY" not
"MAXIMIZING HAPPINESS"



>In this case you may feel that the results were unfair, but you don't care
about them all that much.  There will also be cases where you will care a
lot more, and two people who are much less concerned >with the result could
over-rule your decision.  Giving up a small amount of happiness in one
election is worth getting greater happiness on average. 

 
At least in the U.S. the Supreme Count might have something to say about
this election.

>If they were educated enough to understand important concepts of social
choice theory, they might even say something correct.  But the reality is
that they have historically been incredibly stupid and >unsophisticated
about such nuances. 
http://rangevoting.org/SupremeCt.html

 

The Supreme Court has used the concept of Equal ""Voting Power".

Each voter needs to have an equal ability to influence the outcome of an
election.

Traditionally it has been "one man one vote" but they have said that what is
important is "equal voting Power"

 

Just to help the Range voting cause you could say that ..

1.	A>B>C with range votes of 10/9/0 
2.	B>C>A with range votes of  10/1/0

Those have equal "power" overall both have 20 votes (counts)

1.	A>B has 1 vote, B>C has 9 votes and A>C has 10 votes
2.	B>A has 10 votes B>C has 9 votes and C>A  has 1 vote

It looks like any time you have every voter with the following votes:

10/X/0 (where X is between 10 and 0) then you have each voter with equal
"Voting Power" overall.

 

You can't have some voters with 10/9/8 or 2/1/0 (they only have 4 Votes
(counts))

The Voter many not be aware the they are reducing their votes i.e. "Voting
Power"

OR 10/10/10 which has the voter "Not voting"

 

This system and range voting in general does lead to "Strategic" voting
however (which I won't get into).

 

 

Who's to say my "slight disappointment loss" might be larger (in welfare)
than your "larger happiness gain".

>You just did.  You said it was slight and mine was larger.  In any case,
computer simulations say, that's who.
http://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20080105/2a5598ce/attachment-0003.htm>