Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 ... 59   Go Down

Author Topic: NH vs WY  (Read 190363 times)

LeRuineur6

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1634
  • Act decisively. Without reserve!
    • Liberty Scholarship Fund
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #120 on: June 23, 2003, 02:20:48 pm »

Quote
Numbers wise I think NH is second best at achieving an FSP state therefore that is where I will put it. Wyoming I believe is the best therefore that is were I will put it. No stategic crap involved, just honest opinion.

Agreed.

I believe NH is the best choice by far because it should not be our job to "warm up" WY's economy and because we cannot possibly create the jobs there that will be necessary for FSP success.  However, all other factors considered, it would be dishonest for me to place WY anywhere but second place in my opinion.

So my vote will be:
NH>(all the others)>WY

Just kidding!  :D
Logged
Please donate $5 to $10 per month to the Liberty Scholarship Fund!
"Noncooperation is intended to pave the way to real, honorable, and voluntary cooperation based on mutual respect and trust." -Gandhi

Aaron

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #121 on: June 23, 2003, 11:57:40 pm »

it should not be our job to "warm up" WY's economy and because we cannot possibly create the jobs there that will be necessary for FSP success

Those who think this way are selling us as a group way short.  Libertarian minded folks tend to fall closer to the "best and brightest" end of the bell curve.  With this fact plus the fact that we will be removing the barriers between business people associating freely with each other, and I can't help but believe that we are gong to knock everyones socks off!  Don't think I am saying it will be easy.  I'm saying that we are a group that believes in hard work and in being rewarded for it.  We are going to create a REAL Galt's Gulch like the world has never seen.  And I suspect it will happen a lot quicker than most of the members are predicting or even hoping for.

You are right; it is not our "job".  But it is going to happen anyway.

Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #122 on: June 24, 2003, 01:36:21 am »


You are right; it is not our "job".  But it is going to happen anyway.


You are right.  For some of us, it is just what we do.  I work two jobs (part-time) and I get frustrated when I cannot get my work schedules set-up so that I can start a third job.  

My dad used to be self-employed.  He would work 60-70 hours a week and he loved it.  He knew that every additional hour worked was more money in the bank.  He was very happy because he was his own boss and in charge of his own life.  He did not have to put up with anything or anyone in anyway (except for the government).  

The man that introduced me to libertarian thought has 3 separate businesses.  If his wife works, it is just helping him.  Though, normally, she just homeschools their kids.  He works out of his home and has a couple employees.  He told me he is going to move to the beaches of Florida while running his businesses from his beach home.

We will be able to experience more freedom in the Free State than even our grandfathers experienced.  I agree that libertarians (especially activists) tend to be some of the best and brightest around.  We are much more motivated, often more creative, more logical, and we work as hard as we need to.  I am not saying that we will have to work hard; it is just that some of us will do that simply because we were programmed to go above and beyond and exceed all expectations since we were young.

On the other hand, I know a couple local LP members that only work ½ or so of the year.  They do a few business deals and than live off of that money for several months.  
Logged

Delawarean

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • I'm a llama!
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #123 on: June 24, 2003, 03:51:14 pm »

Am I the only one here that doesn't follow Zxcv's logic?  I don't believe that he meant to mislead anyone, but his post seems to prove that strategic voting does work.  In his example, New Hampshire won even when all the New Hampshire supporters put Wyoming second.  Of course New Hampshire would still win; they had slightly more supporters. The only effect of this change was to drop Idaho by 10 points.

To put it another way, what if the Wyoming backers had voted strategically and the New Hampshire voters did not?

0:WY>NH>ID
20:WY>ID>NH
11:NH>WY>ID
10:NH>ID>WY
10:ID>NH>WY
10:ID>WY>NH

ID wins by random tiebreaker with 30 points
WY 30 points
NH, with more supporters than each of the other states, doesn't even come close.  21 points
« Last Edit: June 24, 2003, 03:59:16 pm by Delawarean »
Logged

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #124 on: June 24, 2003, 07:53:00 pm »

Am I the only one here that doesn't follow Zxcv's logic?  I don't believe that he meant to mislead anyone, but his post seems to prove that strategic voting does work.

I thought Zxcv made the same point that you made in your example where WY advocates vote "strategically" against NH. Strategic voting doesn't help their favorite (WY) but it can cause their lesser choice (ID) to win over their true second choice (NH).

I didn't get the impression that Zxcv was arguing that people should rank WY higher than they thought it should be, just that they shouldn't rank it lower. It wouldn't help NH and might have the unintended consequence of selecting a state that both NH and WY supporters considered a 3rd or lower choice.

I think this thread has pretty well established that we have a good voting method as long as people vote their true preferences and don't try to outsmart the system.
Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #125 on: June 24, 2003, 09:03:02 pm »

Am I the only one here that doesn't follow Zxcv's logic?  I don't believe that he meant to mislead anyone, but his post seems to prove that strategic voting does work.  In his example, New Hampshire won even when all the New Hampshire supporters put Wyoming second.  Of course New Hampshire would still win; they had slightly more supporters. The only effect of this change was to drop Idaho by 10 points.

To put it another way, what if the Wyoming backers had voted strategically and the New Hampshire voters did not?

0:WY>NH>ID
20:WY>ID>NH
11:NH>WY>ID
10:NH>ID>WY
10:ID>NH>WY
10:ID>WY>NH

ID wins by random tiebreaker with 30 points
WY 30 points
NH, with more supporters than each of the other states, doesn't even come close.  21 points

Actually, in this case NH comes last, WY comes second, and ID wins.  NH beats WY 31-30, ID beats NH 41-20, and WY beats ID 31-30.  As smallest magnitude wins, NH beats WY and WY beats ID are eliminated, and ID is the only state with a victory.  By voting strategically, the WY voters with the preference WY>NH>ID have helped to elect their least favorite candidate!

That having been said, you could alter the example slightly and make it so that strategic voting works.  But to make strategic voting work with Condorcet, you need to be able to influence the sequence of elimination, and therefore have complete information about how everyone else is voting.  A theoretical possibility, but not obtaining in our upcoming vote.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2003, 09:05:48 pm by JasonPSorens »
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

Delawarean

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • I'm a llama!
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #126 on: June 24, 2003, 09:30:38 pm »

LibertyLover wrote:
"Strategic voting doesn't help their favorite (WY) but it can cause their lesser choice (ID) to win over their true second choice (NH)."



"Strategic" voting certainly did help Wyoming in my example. It got Wyoming into the random tiebreaker instead of simply losing to New Hampshire.  
If New Hampshire and Wyoming are the two top contenders and NH people vote:
NH>undesirables>WY,
then NH has a huge advantage unless WY supporters vote in a similar way (WY>undesirables>NH)

LibertyLover wrote:
"I didn't get the impression that Zxcv was arguing that people should rank WY higher than they thought it should be, just that they shouldn't rank it lower. It wouldn't help NH and might have the unintended consequence of selecting a state that both NH and WY supporters considered a 3rd or lower choice."

The truth is, with this voting system, it <B>would</B> help NH supporters to vote WY at the bottom as shown by Zxcv's example and by my example.  

I didn't bring this up to criticize Zxcv. Its just that I am more convinced after his post that Condrocets method is not the best for this project.

LibertyLover wrote:

"I think this thread has pretty well established that we have a good voting method as long as people vote their true preferences and don't try to outsmart the system."

LibertyLover, I just don't see how voting: #1CHOICE>#2CHOICE>#3CHOICE and so on, is rational with this kind of voting method.  If you have a favorite state, and another state seems to have many supporters, you should tend to put that competing state near the bottom of the ballot even if it should be ranked higher on objective criteria.  I think that instant runofff voting avoids this kind of dilemma.  
Logged

Delawarean

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • I'm a llama!
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #127 on: June 24, 2003, 10:47:07 pm »

Thank you Jason for responding, but unless some other critieria are used for the vote:

Jason wrote:
"Actually, in this case NH comes last, WY comes second, and ID wins.  NH beats WY 31-30, ID beats NH 41-20, and WY beats ID 31-30.  As smallest magnitude wins, NH beats WY and WY beats ID are eliminated, and ID is the only state with a victory.  By voting strategically, the WY voters with the preference WY>NH>ID have helped to elect their least favorite candidate!"

No.
The WY voters in my example voted for WY>ID>NH

No.
 As I see it, the calculator said ID and WY had 30 points each and ID happened to win by a random tiebreaker.  Maybe something other will be used in the acutal vote but,  a tiebreaker just isn't going to happen in the big vote and in my example "strategic" voting would just hurt a state that is a close second in many peoples minds when there is a favorite.
Logged

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #128 on: June 24, 2003, 11:18:18 pm »

LibertyLover wrote:
"Strategic voting doesn't help their favorite (WY) but it can cause their lesser choice (ID) to win over their true second choice (NH)."


"Strategic" voting certainly did help Wyoming in my example. It got Wyoming into the random tiebreaker instead of simply losing to New Hampshire.  
What does "random tiebreaker" mean? How could making ID win help WY? Are you saying that WY supporters who actually think NH is the 2nd best choice (like me) would get some kind of satisfaction out of WY losing to ID instead of "simply losing" to NH? I don't understand your reasoning at all.

Quote
If New Hampshire and Wyoming are the two top contenders and NH people vote:
NH>undesirables>WY,
then NH has a huge advantage unless WY supporters vote in a similar way (WY>undesirables>NH)

If the goal of NH supporters is to beat WY at any cost and the goal of WY supporters is to beat NH at any cost, that statement is true. But if the goal of both NH and WY supporters is to select one of the two best choices to be the Free State, then both are (as my mother used to say) cutting off their noses to spite their face because they are going to end up with ">undesirables>."

Disclaimer here: I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't consider NH and WY the two best choices, but the whole reason we got into these "strategic voting" scenarios is because a lot of people are assuming it will be a close race between the two and aren't sure how the Cordorcet voting method will work. Using ID as the third most popular is just as much a guess as assuming that there won't be a clear winner between NH and WY.

Quote
LibertyLover wrote:
"I didn't get the impression that Zxcv was arguing that people should rank WY higher than they thought it should be, just that they shouldn't rank it lower. It wouldn't help NH and might have the unintended consequence of selecting a state that both NH and WY supporters considered a 3rd or lower choice."

The truth is, with this voting system, it <B>would</B> help NH supporters to vote WY at the bottom as shown by Zxcv's example and by my example.  

I don't get it. Zxcv's example showed NH winning both with and without strategic voting and your example showed ID winning with strategic voting, so how can you possibly say that using strategic voting to prevent WY from winning would help NH?

Quote
LibertyLover wrote:

"I think this thread has pretty well established that we have a good voting method as long as people vote their true preferences and don't try to outsmart the system."

LibertyLover, I just don't see how voting: #1CHOICE>#2CHOICE>#3CHOICE and so on, is rational with this kind of voting method.  

That is the ONLY rational way to vote with this system to avoid shooting yourself in the foot.

Quote
If you have a favorite state, and another state seems to have many supporters, you should tend to put that competing state near the bottom of the ballot even if it should be ranked higher on objective criteria. I think that instant runofff voting avoids this kind of dilemma.  

I happen to like instant runoff voting in some kinds of elections, but not for this. Have you read the report that explains why Condorcet was chosen instead of instant runoff? It might help you understand why your strategy (if people follow it) will have a different result from what you are expecting.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2003, 11:29:22 pm by LibertyLover »
Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #129 on: June 25, 2003, 12:16:30 am »

Jason wrote:
"Actually, in this case NH comes last, WY comes second, and ID wins.  NH beats WY 31-30, ID beats NH 41-20, and WY beats ID 31-30.  As smallest magnitude wins, NH beats WY and WY beats ID are eliminated, and ID is the only state with a victory.  By voting strategically, the WY voters with the preference WY>NH>ID have helped to elect their least favorite candidate!"

No.
The WY voters in my example voted for WY>ID>NH

The WY voters in your example VOTED WY>ID>NH, but the true PREFERENCE for the ten who voted strategically was WY>NH>ID. If they had all preferred ID to NH, it wouldn't have been a strategic vote and your example would have been off point.

Quote
No.
 As I see it, the calculator said ID and WY had 30 points each and ID happened to win by a random tiebreaker.

Now I see the problem. You thought WY had a chance to win what you thought was a "random" tiebreaker. The method we are using has nothing random about it. WY had to be eliminated because of the smaller magnitude of its win, as Jason explained above. The reason for its smaller magnitude was the ten people who preferred NH as #2 but voted ID #2 as a strategic way to stop NH from beating WY.
If they had voted their preference, NH would have won and they would have gotten their second choice instead of their third.

Quote
Maybe something other will be used in the acutal vote but,  a tiebreaker just isn't going to happen in the big vote and in my example "strategic" voting would just hurt a state that is a close second in many peoples minds when there is a favorite.
So why are you suggesting that people should vote strategically if it would just hurt a state that is second?

This really doesn't have to be complicated. Everybody should just vote their preferences instead of trying to figure out how everybody else is going to vote.
Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #130 on: June 25, 2003, 07:44:07 am »

Thank you Jason for responding, but unless some other critieria are used for the vote:

Jason wrote:
"Actually, in this case NH comes last, WY comes second, and ID wins.  NH beats WY 31-30, ID beats NH 41-20, and WY beats ID 31-30.  As smallest magnitude wins, NH beats WY and WY beats ID are eliminated, and ID is the only state with a victory.  By voting strategically, the WY voters with the preference WY>NH>ID have helped to elect their least favorite candidate!"

No.
The WY voters in my example voted for WY>ID>NH

Yes, I know... But 10 of those voters had the actual preference WY>NH>ID, but you had them putting NH last to see what that would do.  Turns out that hurt NH but didn't help WY - so strategic voting didn't help.

Quote
No.
 As I see it, the calculator said ID and WY had 30 points each and ID happened to win by a random tiebreaker.  Maybe something other will be used in the acutal vote but,  a tiebreaker just isn't going to happen in the big vote and in my example "strategic" voting would just hurt a state that is a close second in many peoples minds when there is a favorite.


Yes, the calculator used a random tiebreaker to decide between ID and WY because both were unbeaten.  I gave the victory to ID because it still had a win.  I agree that in the real vote there won't be any need for a tiebreaker here, what with 10 candidates and 4000+ votes.
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

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #131 on: June 25, 2003, 07:50:01 am »

LibertyLover, I just don't see how voting: #1CHOICE>#2CHOICE>#3CHOICE and so on, is rational with this kind of voting method.  If you have a favorite state, and another state seems to have many supporters, you should tend to put that competing state near the bottom of the ballot even if it should be ranked higher on objective criteria.  I think that instant runofff voting avoids this kind of dilemma.  

No, you were able to manipulate the result sufficiently as to create a tiebreaker.  But two very unlikely conditions must hold for strategic voting under Condorcet to be able to give you the result you want: 1) You must know how everyone else votes.  (Not going to happen.)  2) Your vote must be able to make the difference in how states get eliminated during a tiebreaker sequence, assuming there is one - or you must be able to coordinate your vote with others to accomplish this.  (Very unlikely.)  If either of these conditions doesn't hold, strategic voting of the type you describe has a negative expected utility, i.e., it's more likely to result in a bad outcome for you than a good outcome.
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

MajesticLeo

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
  • Am neither Dahlai nor Lama
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #132 on: June 25, 2003, 12:42:44 pm »

"Negative Expected Utility"????  WOW, I am glad to see that attaining your Doctorate has been useful, Jason.  Talk about increasing the obfuscation factor.    ;D

It appears to me that voting any way other than the order in which you think states should rank should be the last thing on anyone's mind.  I thought the idea was we were to move to the state honestly selected by vote?  Don't you think starting FSP by attempting vote fraud, or manipulation whichever you chose to call it, doesn't look good for claiming any vestige of honor and honesty in any future dealings???

Logged
I'm off to be the Wizard!!!!

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #133 on: June 25, 2003, 01:40:26 pm »

I thought the idea was we were to move to the state honestly selected by vote?  Don't you think starting FSP by attempting vote fraud, or manipulation whichever you chose to call it, doesn't look good for claiming any vestige of honor and honesty in any future dealings???



Hear, hear! I could have saved myself a lot of time if I had thought to say that instead of trying to show why manipulation wouldn't work.  :)
Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

Delawarean

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • I'm a llama!
Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
« Reply #134 on: June 26, 2003, 10:04:00 am »

Since I'm the only one here that has a problem with the Condorcet Method, let me give it just more try with an example.

First of all, I want to say that I am not trying to manipulate the vote for any particular state. In fact, I am undecided about which state is best.  I simply want to point out that Zxcv's premise is wrong and that the popularity of other states is an important consideration in the real vote.

Also, I am trying to "Vote with Thought", as someone put it (sounds almost like "Vote For the Children" to me).  Believe me, I have been thinking about this quite a bit since Jason and other such intelligent people here disagree with me.  Maybe someone can show me where I'm going wrong (hopefully without accusing me of voter fraud).

Anyway, here is an example taken the the Condorcet calculator page:

votes:

896:A>C>E>D>B
776:B>A>C>E>D
399:C>E>D>B>A
652:D>B>A>C>E
526:E>D>B>A>C

scores:

A  896
B  776
C  399
D  652
E  526

Here, the winner, A, had an outright majority of the first place votes and  its not suprising that A wins.  Now what if the A voters had placed runner-up, B, in the second spot instead of dead last, (as Zxcv advocates in his NH vs. WY example)?:

votes:

896:A>B>E>D>C
776:B>A>C>E>D
399:C>E>D>B>A
652:D>B>A>C>E
526:E>D>B>A>C

scores:

A    896
B  1672
C    399
D    652
E    925

A, (or NH), now comes in third with the otherwise runner-up, B, winning in a landslide.  

I know that this doesn't prove much (but it does prove that Zxcv's claims are untrue).  I also think this makes it clear that strategic voting can have a major effect.  

Jason, you are partly correct when you say 1) you must know how everyone votes.  However,a voter does not have to know the exact votes of everyone else in order to put a popular state at the bottom of the ballot and hurt that states chances.  We do have some information on how people are going to vote: New Hampshise popular, Maine unpopular for example.  As far as your reason #2), I think that a tie is so unlikely as to be irrelevent.  

I know some people think I'm suggesting something unethical, but I am  actually just trying to show that, unfortunately, Condorcets method turns the vote into something like a poker game where you must consider the actions of others to make an informed decision.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 ... 59   Go Up