<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Regarding</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>"<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000
size=3>Regarding voting power given to the voting junkies...<BR><BR>I tried to
alleviate that a bit, by saying it would end at a random time. So as long
as everyone has a chance to come back and tweak their vote 3 or 4 times....would
that be enough? I'm guessing...but can't be sure...that it would reach an
equilibrium and everyone would not be able to improve their
votes."</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I still think there'd be a problem with folks who spent a
few months doing their civic duty by learning what the candidates said and
thinking about issues coming up with a ballot and going away being
out-strategized by a concerted effort on the part of voting junkies who are more
interested in getting their party in power than they are about any issue related
to the public interest.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>In my idealized example, everyone is in the virtual voting
booth at the same time, and while no one can see any others ballots, everyone
can see the current tallys, and can adjust their ballot based upon the current
results. (This works in theory only if there is a voting both for each voter,
and they can all stay in it until everyone steps out, but the internet model
makes that possible in the virtual world, with "being in the voting booth"
corresponding to "being logged in to the voting server."</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Not only do I think this "perfect knowledge" paradigm
results in an equilibrium, I beleve at the closing of the voting (shutdown of
the server) there'd be enough information available to create ranked ballots for
each voter and to count them however one wished.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=026152906-31122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I think Rob's astraction gives us a way to distinguish
"strategic voting in ones interest" from "strategic manipulation of the results
depending upon the method."</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>rob
brown<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 31, 2007 12:10 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Election
Methods Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Election-Methods] hypothetical
question re: Approval<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Paul, thanks for the reply, and with your permission I posted your
entire reply to the list....<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Dec 30, 2007 8:51 PM, Paul Kislanko <<A
href="mailto:jpkislanko@bellsouth.net">jpkislanko@bellsouth.net </A>>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Funny, I
was imagining the same sort of real-time results and
changeable-vote-based-upon real-time-results in conjunction with a Condorcet
based thought experiment. Approval is kind of a generalization of what I was
thinking.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>To give
context to my answer, I think Approval would be a perfectly good method for a
party to adopt for its primary. It's darn near perfect for allowing me to
express my first choice plus whoever I think has a better chance of winning
than my first choice, assuming I want my party's candidate to win even if he's
my last choice in the primary.... I think it is inappropriate for general
elections for any number of technical reasons.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>What's
really interesting about approval in your scenario is that if you can get
real-time results and can change your ballot, as the voting deadline nears its
end you can affect the outcome by de-approving candidates that are doing "too
well" in your estimation and approving candidates you previously didn't if
doing so would cause the new candidate to pass someone you strongly
dis-approve of.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Alas, the
problem is that much more "voting power" would be given to the voting junkies
who stayed online and kept changing their ballots than to the folks who spent
a lot of time coming up with one ballot, submitted it, and then went to bed.
Scary.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>(This is
off-list, but mostly because I hit the Reply instead of Reply-All. Feel free
to quote me if you do so
exactly.)</FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>Regarding voting power
given to the voting junkies...<BR><BR>I tried to alleviate that a bit, by saying
it would end at a random time. So as long as everyone has a chance to come
back and tweak their vote 3 or 4 times....would that be enough? I'm
guessing...but can't be sure...that it would reach an equilibrium and everyone
would not be able to improve their votes. However, a condorcet cycle might
actually put this into a feedback loop. (I also tried to mitigate that a bit by
saying they could view average results over a longer time period....they might
want to hedge their bets by voting based on what they see as the most likely
eventual outcome) <BR><BR>Still....if they get more power by being a "voting
junkie"...wouldn't that be true of plain old approval voting too, at least as
much so? Those that pay closer atttention to the polls would have more
power. In an election that is effectively a condorcet cycle, the
polls become part of the feedback loop, and having up-to-the-minute poll
information would be especially valuable. (but it might also be
inaccurate, because people might have a strong incentive to lie to the
pollsters) <BR><BR></BODY></HTML>