Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: experiment  (Read 17789 times)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
experiment
« on: October 24, 2002, 12:12:42 pm »

This is an experiment, the purpose of which may not be immediately apparent to you.  However, I'll let you know once I get an adequate number of responses.  You can post your responses here or email them to me at jason.sorens@yale.edu .

The question: how would rank the candidate states 1-10, how would you assign points to them in a cumulative count vote if you had 100 points to give, and how would you "rate" each state on a scale of 0-100 (not considering other states)?

Here's an example of the format to use (rankings, points, and ratings given here are random):

State             Ranking       Points    Rating
Alaska                 1             29           99
Idaho                  2             20            90
Montana             3             18            87
Wyoming             4             11            76
North Dakota      5              8              69
South Dakota      6              7             68
Vermont              7              5              62
New Hampshire   8             1               55
Maine                   9             1              54
Delaware            10            0               47
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:experiment
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2002, 01:27:02 pm »

Hey Jason I think this is a great experiment!!!!
You know that I'm biased towards Rating in fact here is my rating vote for the the different voting systems!

Ranking   20
Points      51
Rating    100

okay and here is the one you've asked for this is how I would actually vote if we were voting today.

State            Ranking      Points    Rating
New Hampshire  1            75             100
Delaware            2            25              98  
Alaska                3               0              50
Wyoming            4               0              30
Vermont              5              0              20
Idaho                  6              0              10
Montana             7               0                6
Maine                  8              0                 5
South Dakota      9              0                 0
North Dakota      10             0                 0

 
 
 
 

 

« Last Edit: October 24, 2002, 01:27:59 pm by Eddie_Bradford »
Logged

craft_6

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
  • Constitutional Libertarian
Re:experiment
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2002, 01:31:33 pm »

State  Ranking  Points  Rating
-------  ----------  -------   --------
AK        1           40        90
MT        2           26        85
ND        3           24        80
WY        4             9         65
SD        5             1         50
DL        6             0         45
VT        7             0         40
ID        8             0         35
NH        9             0         30
ME      10            0          25
Logged
Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!
http://www.badnarik.org
Badnarik for President, 2004

Stumpy

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 996
Re:experiment
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2002, 03:23:40 pm »

State             Ranking       Points    Rating
Montana             1             30            85
North Dakota      2            25             75
Idaho                  3            20            70
Wyoming            4            18             60
New Hampshire   5            5              45
South Dakota      6             2             40
Maine                   7            0             20
Vermont              8             0             20
Alaska                 9             0             15
Delaware            10           0              0
Logged
Libertarianitis - A disease where one is incapable of doing anything other than debate. The sufferer is rendered totally incapable of being constructive and constantly marginalizes him or herself by displays of extreme negativity, bitterness and intransigence.

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:experiment
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2002, 04:02:17 pm »

Alaska                1              40            90
Montana             2              20            75
Wyoming            3              10            60
Vermont             4               10            50
Idaho                  5              10            50
New Hampshire  6               10            40
Maine                  7                0               5
South Dakota      8                0             0
North Dakota      9                0             0
Delaware            10              0             0
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:experiment
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2002, 05:09:05 pm »

Idaho                   1               50         90
Montana              2               30          65
Delaware              3              20         40
New Hampshire      4               0          11
Maine                    5              0          9
Vermont                6              0          7
Alaska                    7             0          5
South Dakota        8              0           0
Wyominig               9             0           0
North Dakota         10           0           0

In my analysis, inadequate air service is a veto (SD, WY, and ND fail the test).  Cold and snow are heavily weighted.  Western, spacious, dry, and liberty oriented are important.  
Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

cathleeninsc

  • Guest
Re:experiment
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2002, 07:23:48 pm »

Montana        1       20     85
N. Dakota      2       15     75
Alaska            3       15     75
New Hampshire 4    15    75
Maine             5       12     73
Idaho             6       10     70
Delaware       7        8      50
Vermont         8        5       40
Wyoming        9        0      20
S. Dakota       10      0      20

Cathleen in SC
Logged

Condon

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Tim Condon, ALR (Alien Literary Representative)
Re:experiment
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2002, 07:56:07 pm »

North Dakota            1          30            85
Wyoming                   2          20            80
Montana                    3          15            80
South Dakota            4            9             65
Delaware                   5            9             60
Vermont                     6            6             65
Alaska                        7             5            60
Idaho                         8            3              65
Maine                         9            2              60
New Hampshire         10           1              60
Logged

phylinidaho

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Friend of the FSP
Re:experiment
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2002, 08:12:58 pm »

State            Ranking      Points    Rating
Montana           1            75           95
North Dakota     2            10            85
Idaho               3              8           80
Maine               4              6              60
New Hampshire   5             1            40
South Dakota       6              0            40
Wyoming            7              0             20
Vermont               8              0                5
Alaska                 9              0                0
Delaware          10            0                0
Logged

Dakotabound

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
  • Forty Below Keeps the Riff-Raff Out!
Re:experiment
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2002, 10:32:11 pm »

State            Ranking      Points    Rating
North Dakota     1              50         100
Montana             2             10           80
Wyoming            3             10           75
South Dakota     4               5           65
Alaska                5               5           50
Idaho                 6               5           50
Vermont             7               5           45
New Hampshire  8              5            45
Maine                  9              3            30
Delaware            10             2            30
Logged
Self-Defense is a Basic Human Right.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:experiment
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2002, 01:10:38 am »

State            Ranking      Points    Rating
Montana            1             30        100
North Dakota     2             20          90
Alaska                3            10          75
Maine                 4             10          65
Wyoming            5             10          60
Idaho                 6              10         40
South Dakota     7              5           30
New Hampshire  8              5            25
Vermont              9              0            0
Delaware            10            0            0

Michelle

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
Re:experiment
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2002, 11:36:36 am »

State            Ranking      Points    Rating
New Hampshire  1            75            100
Maine                  2            10              75  
Idaho                  3              5              70
Montana             4              5               70
Alaska                 5              5               60
Wyoming             6              0               50
Vermont              7              0              50
South Dakota      8              0                40
North Dakota      9               0               40
Delaware            10            0                30
Logged
Please join NHLA today! http://www.nhliberty.org With every new member we gain political weight to support liberty-friendly candidates and promote liberty throughout NH.
Support the Liberty Scholarship Fund. Please make a donation today! http://www.lsfund.org

mlilback

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
  • I'm nobody's llama!
    • home page
Re:experiment
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2002, 06:28:04 pm »


State         Ranking  Points  Rating
New Hampshire    1       50      90
Delaware         2       20      75
Maine            3       15      80
Vermont          4       10      80
Montana          5        5      60
Idaho            6        0      50
Alaska           7        0      30
North Dakota     8        0      15
South Dakota     9        0      10
Wyoming         10        0      10

Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2002, 07:52:57 pm »

All right, 12 responses are sufficient for me to do the analysis, so here it is...

The purpose of this experiment was twofold: 1) to see whether the presentation of the vote increased the "rationality" of cumulative count ballots; 2) to see whether cumulative count stacked up well against the two alternative methods most often promoted.

I'll deal with the second first.  It appears that cumulative count performs much better than its critics expect.  

Instant runoff voting (also called "alternative vote" and "single transferable vote") uses the rankings in the first column.  It works by eliminating choices with the least amount of first-place votes and then allocating second preferences among those candidates left.  Then the process is repeated, until a winner is found.  When this done to the above ballots, New Hampshire and Montana are the two left standing at the end, and Montana wins handily, 8-4.

Under cumulative count, New Hampshire and Montana are again the top two, and Montana wins, 281-257.  The third place choice is North Dakota with 179; under IRV North Dakota and Alaska are tied for third.  Alaska is a close fifth under cumulative count, getting beaten by Idaho 121-120.  So the cumulative count result closely matches the IRV result.

Under approval vote, which simply adds up the absolute ratings in the third column, Montana and New Hampshire are again the top two candidates, and again Montana wins, 860-731.  However, Idaho sneaks all the way into third place with 715, not far behind New Hampshire.  North Dakota and Alaska are fourth and fifth, with 685 and 625 respectively.

Apart from the anomaly of Idaho, cumulative count and approval vote are very, very similar.  The Pearson r correlation between the two methods for all 10 candidate states was 0.89, which is quite good: 1.0 is a perfect correlation, and 0.0 means no correlation.

My conclusion: the hullabuloo over voting method is much ado about nothing.  All 3 methods yield essentially the same result.  (By the way, pure plurality voting yields a tie between Montana and New Hampshire for first-place votes.  Plurality vote is perhaps the worst voting method we could possibly choose. ;))

When it comes to rationality of the cumulative count ballots, however, there are some real puzzles, the solutions to which may have important implications for how the Research Committee designs the ultimate state ballot, and for how we go about educating people about cumulative count.

The main potential problem with just about any voting system is strategic voting.  Strategic voting is the phenomenon whereby people refrain from voting for candidates that they think won't win, and instead vote for the lesser of the evils that they think can win.

[In what follows, please recognize that I am not criticizing how anyone voted.  Your ballot is inviolate, and neither I nor anyone else has the right to criticize the way you choose to cast it.  However, paradoxes in the way certain people voted are instructive for us in learning how to describe cumulative count and how to design the "real" ballot.]

Now then...the most obvious case of strategic voting was Eddie's ballot.  He gave all his CC votes to 2 states, and 50 more CC votes to New Hampshire than to Delaware, even though Delaware for him was almost as good a candidate as New Hampshire (rating 98 versus 100).  Alaska, Idaho, Vermont, Montana, Wyoming, and Maine did not get any votes from him even though he considered them to have some value as candidates (ratings>0).  Phyllis' ballot was also apparently strategic: even though North Dakota and Idaho were almost as good for her as Montana, she gave 65 more CC points to Montana than to either of them.  Two very instructive cases!  Still, Eddie's and Phyllis' strategic voting was a lot less than what people have been doing on the practice poll on the State Data page.  A few days ago I examined the individual votes in the practice poll - fully 42% of them gave all 10 of their points to a single candidate!  This, of course, defeats the whole point of cumulative count.  I'm heartened to see that no one here gave all 100 votes to a single state.  There are two potential reasons for this: having people rank states made them think about candidates that were good but not their first choice, and giving people 100 points rather than 10 made them feel as if they could spread them out more.  If this is true, we should do the same thing on the final ballot.  Matt Cheselka is designing a new practice poll for the website to determine this more scientifically, over a bigger sample.  But the results from this experiment are encouraging.

There were some minor paradoxes in almost everyone's ballot.  Mike Lilback gave 15 CC points to Maine and 10 to Vermont even though they are equally good candidates according to his ratings.  Michelle gave 5 points to 3 states even though 1 fell below the others in terms of rating.  Robert gives 10 points to a state he rates 75 and 10 points to a state he rates 40 - wow!  There seems to be a strong tendency to give "round numbers" in the CC vote (and in the ratings for that matter), even when people are clearly not indifferent among two or more candidates they may "round them both off" to the nearest 5.

Something everyone except Tim and Kim did was to give 0 points to more than 1 state.  Theoretically, this shouldn't happen: you should want to give at least 1 point to your #9 choice in order to help it out, even if just a very little bit, over your #10 choice.  (Tim's and Kim's ballots have their own paradox, in that they gave votes to their worst choices! ;))

So I'm interested in hearing from people about some of these paradoxes, especially why you didn't give any CC votes to states that were low on your list but still rated much higher than your worst choice.  Again, I'm not criticising the fact that you did this - far from it.  But getting to know people's logic will help us figure out whether we need to put more explicit instructions in the final ballot, or undertake more education about how best to cast a cumulative count ballot given any array of preferences.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Jim1

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re:experiment
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2002, 08:43:28 pm »

A few days ago I examined the individual votes in the practice poll - fully 42% of them gave all 10 of their points to a single candidate!  This, of course, defeats the whole point of cumulative count.  I'm heartened to see that no one here gave all 100 votes to a single state.  There are two potential reasons for this: having people rank states made them think about candidates that were good but not their first choice, and giving people 100 points rather than 10 made them feel as if they could spread them out more.


I think the real reason for less "strategic voting" was that the vote was public (not a secret ballot). Nobody wants to look like a cheater.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
 

anything