Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jack Harrison]

Hmmm. Thinking about the ballot method. In an attempt to help ensure your first choice state is selected, if one has a suspicion that a different state may be close in the running as well, it might be wise to put that state at the bottom of your list, instead of, say, Delaware. Hmmm.

Wonder what other kinds of chicanery might be involved in the voting. I guess in a perfect world we'd select our actual first, choice, second choice, etc....

[Kelton Baker]

Pack your bags for North Dakota, Jack.  If everyone is vying for their top choice by strategically putting 2nd and 3rd choice last, that's exactly where we'll go.

₁

[JonM]

Hmmm. Thinking about the ballot method. In an attempt to help ensure your first choice state is selected, if one has a suspicion that a different state may be close in the running as well, it might be wise to put that state at the bottom of your list, instead of, say, Delaware. Hmmm.

Wonder what other kinds of chicanery might be involved in the voting. I guess in a perfect world we'd select our actual first, choice, second choice, etc....

Get enough people to do that, and North Dakota will win!

[Jack Harrison]

Exactly. You guys are making my point for me! Vote with honesty.

[JasonPSorens]

How many times do I have to go over this?  Putting your 2nd favorite state last just because you think it might compete with your first state does not help your first state in any way, shape, or form.

Think of the voting system as a round-robin tournament.  If A beats B, C, and D in its 3 games, then it doesn't matter whether B beats C or D.  A still wins.  Changing the result so that B loses to C or D doesn't affect anything, so long as B loses to A.

[Jack Harrison]

You might/should go over this every day. Not all us read every thread/post on this board!

[Kelton Baker]

How many times do I have to go over this?  Putting your 2nd favorite state last just because you think it might compete with your first state does not help your first state in any way, shape, or form.

Think of the voting system as a round-robin tournament.  If A beats B, C, and D in its 3 games, then it doesn't matter whether B beats C or D.  A still wins.  Changing the result so that B loses to C or D doesn't affect anything, so long as B loses to A.

You might/should go over this every day. Not all us read every thread/post on this board!

As long as this is explained in the ballot papers, I think we should be fine. . . at least I hope so.  It is explained in the ballot mailings isn't it?  It was in the last mailing that went out.

₃₄

[JasonPSorens]

Well, the cover letter had to have so much stuff crammed into it that I just referred people to the website.  I think the only people who are concerned about frontrunners and the possibility of voting strategically are those who are really active on the forums and thus believe (perhaps wrongly) that the states discussed on the forums are the frontrunners - and the message of how strategic voting hurts you should have filtered to most of these readers by now.

[craft_6]

Another important aspect of Condorcet's Method voting, which I haven't seen anyone mention yet:

If you think a state is really the best choice, but are afraid that most other voters don't think so, ranking it first will in no way lessen the impact of your relative ranking of the front-runners.

A not-quite randomly selected example:

You think Alaska is the best choice, but have heard that many others don't like it, and that the front runners are New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Idaho.

If you rank Alaska first, and a majority of other voters rank it near the bottom, your relative rankings of NH, WY, and ID will be just as meaningful in determining the outcome as if you ranked AK lower.

The bottom line is:  rank the states as you see them, and let the chips fall where they may.

Edit:  Don't be surprised if Montana, Delaware, Vermont, or South Dakota do better than some or all of the supposed front runners.  This forum represents only a small portion of the FSP.  (Maine and North Dakota are the only states I haven't seen significant support for, yet both have some distinct advantages.)

[Sebastian]

The votes will be made public, right?

[JasonPSorens]

The votes will be made public, right?

Yes, by member number - so you'll be able to check how your own ballot was counted, but no one else can check how you voted, unless you tell people your member #.

[Sebastian]

unless you tell people your member #.

If people reveal their member #, can that affect anything else? I'd like to think that if we could look up how we all voted, there'd be some sort of accountability (for example, I've been saying all along that I rank both New Hampshire and Wyoming very high, so if it turns out I placed one of them at #1 and the other at #10, it would be revealed that I voted strategically).

[JasonPSorens]

unless you tell people your member #.

If people reveal their member #, can that affect anything else? I'd like to think that if we could look up how we all voted, there'd be some sort of accountability (for example, I've been saying all along that I rank both New Hampshire and Wyoming very high, so if it turns out I placed one of them at #1 and the other at #10, it would be revealed that I voted strategically).

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't reveal your member #.  Everyone knows mine because it's on the sample ballot.  Once the ballots are placed on the website, there will be 7 days for people to check them.  But they can't get away with trying to change their vote!  We will have the hard copies of the ballots.

[LeRuineur6]

I feel the need to clarify how Condorcet's votes are manipulated and to comment as well.

Condorcet's votes are NOT feasibly susceptible to manipulation.

For example, many on these forums have decided put NH or WY in the bottom 3 of their rankings.  This does nothing.  Seriously.

Let us consider that NH is most likely going to win but someone really REALLY doesn't want it to win and wants WY to win instead.  This leads to a few methods they may try to use to manipulate the result of the vote:

1)  They put WY first and NH last.  This does absolutely NOTHING to hurt NH versus WY.  Condorcet's method is based on pairwise rankings such as NH>WY or WY>NH, so no matter how many states you put between them, this does NOTHING to change the greater-than/less-than pairwise relationship between NH and WY!  NOTHING!

2)  They put WY first and NH in seventh place.  This does NOTHING to hurt NH versus WY!  No matter how many states you put between them, their attempt at manipulation has failed!

3)  They believe that MT may be able to beat NH, even though they do not particularly like MT, so they put WY>MT>NH.  Guess what they've just done to the WY>NH relationship...  NOTHING!  They've only helped MT, a state which they do not particularly like anyways.

Therefore, why do so many people's rankings look like this:
NH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WY
or
WY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NH

Why?  Because they don't understand voting under Condorcet's method.  It's an elementary belief that putting distance between them helps their first choice, but this belief is WRONG!

[Karl]

Therefore, why do so many people's rankings look like this:
NH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WY
or
WY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NH

It should be no surprise that people who do this also happen to be the most rediculous posters on the forum.  What better way to show their spite than self-destructive behavior?  God help us that these people are part of this endevour!