Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Where do we Stand as of Right Now?  (Read 63509 times)

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #45 on: September 11, 2003, 11:48:01 pm »

Hmmm... It's beginning to look like the FSP membership numbers... ;)

Good thing California isn't in the running ;)

V-

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.

Bonner County

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #46 on: September 11, 2003, 11:53:07 pm »

Hmmm... It's beginning to look like the FSP membership numbers...  
 
Sadly,this may be true.We haven't had much of a turnout of voters
Logged
Remember children,after you pull the pin,Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2003, 08:10:56 am »

I brought this up a few months back on one of the Yahoo! groups, and got too busy to follow up on any responses. My question was this - when we hit 5k and start the vote, is the result based on however many of the 5k respond, or is it ongoing until 5k votes are collected? Apparently it's the former, but it will be disappointing if the decision is made based on 2-3k responses.
Logged

Sebastian

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
  • Elderado
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2003, 09:25:07 am »

New Hampshire (me)

New Hampshire (wife)

Quote
So, current tally (FWIW) of 1st place votes....

NH 30
WY 11
ID 7
AK 6
MT 4
ME 2
DE 1
SD 1
If the 7 ID, 6 AK, 4 MT, 2 ME, 1 DE and 1 SD votes all rank NH lower than WY, WY wins by 2 :)
« Last Edit: September 12, 2003, 09:30:03 am by Sebastian »
Logged
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself.

jgmaynard

  • FSP Shadow Advertising
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2288
    • The Light of Alexandria
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2003, 12:18:35 pm »

My gf and I just spent ALL day researching the states (she has been in 8 out of 10), and filled out our ballots to mail out tomorrow.
We came to the following final, actually been pened in, vote....

NH>ID>AK>VT>ME>MT>DE>WY>SD>ND

I know. I can hear a few people screaming now "WHAT?!?!?!? DE over WY? Are you trying to hurt WY?"

Answer: No. I know enough about Condorcet to know that wouldn't work. The main thing is I feel more secure in a high income/high cost situation than a low/low place. There's more control over costs in life than income. Also, there is great coastal access in DE, a maritime climate, and lots o'water. Not a whole lot of difference, but enough to nudge it. WY's gun laws and low cost of elections edged it out over SD, though.

Fin. :D

JM
Logged
The Light of Alexandria By James Maynard

A history of the first 1,000 years of science, and how it changed the ancient world, and our world today.



http://www.lightofalexandria.com

Tony Stelik

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 326
  • I'm a rabid individualist
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2003, 12:50:38 pm »

NH>ID>AK>WY>DE>MT>VT>SD>ND>ME
NH>VT>ME>DE>ID>WY>MT>SD>ND>AK
I do not understand the way of my wife's thinking ???
Logged
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forgive you

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2003, 06:00:47 pm »

I don't know if I got Condorcet right or not, but I just came up with New Hampshire as the big *loser* in contests between NH, ID and WY that could be determined on this forum.

Here's how it shook down:

NH v.s. WY: 7 wins, 10 losses
NH v.s. ID:  9 wins, 8 losses

WY v.s. NH: 10 wins, 7 losses
WY v.s. ID:  6 wins, 9 losses

ID v.s. NH:  9 wins, 8 losses
ID v.s. WY:  9 wins, 6 losses

WY has the most wins in a single competition with 10 wins against NH.
ID has the most total wins (18 v.s. 16 each for WY and NH).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that make ID the winner???

BTW, I did *not* count wins for states in ties (i.e. WY=ID>NH equals wins for WY and ID above NH but no wins for WY above ID or vice versa ).  Is that right?

I also did not run any data for any other states.  Incomplete data is available (obviously) but a ID=MT=WY first place vote obviously means both ID and WY beat NH.  Also, it's interesting to compare Condorcet winners to the first place winners.  Not all votes listed one of those three as a first place vote.  Here are the numbers of first place votes among the 'ballots' I counted for the three states listed:

NH:  11111
WY:  111111
ID:  111

The above counts a first place vote for every state tied for first (if it was in the above list).  Since ID had *two* first place ties, it would have had only *one* vote for first had I not done that (making it look even worse).  I didn't include my entire vote since it wasn't posted, but my vote was:

ID>DE>WY>NH>etc.

That vote would have improved ID's position significantly (as well as added two first-place votes for ID).  Interesting how ID got, by far, the fewest first place votes (between ID, WY, and NH) but *won* the competition overall.  I wonder if that will be how it turns out with the 'big' vote? ;)

V-

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.

Blain

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Liberty or Death!
    • Infowars
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2003, 07:08:13 pm »

I don't think you understand how the voting system works.  What happens is that all the votes for first place are tallyied up, if there is a state with most votes than it wins.  If there is a tie than all the states voted on for #2 are tallied up, if there is a tie it goes to #3 and so on.
Logged
The following flash movie sums up values.
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

"A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made an

LeRuineur6

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1634
  • Act decisively. Without reserve!
    • Liberty Scholarship Fund
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2003, 08:59:42 pm »

I don't think you understand how the voting system works.  What happens is that all the votes for first place are tallyied up, if there is a state with most votes than it wins.  If there is a tie than all the states voted on for #2 are tallied up, if there is a tie it goes to #3 and so on.

Actually Condorcet's method uses "pairwise contests" between every possible pair of states to determine a winner.

But varrin's only taking the available Condorcet's votes into consideration while the majority of people here are only posting their first place choice.   :-\
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

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2003, 09:32:26 pm »

I don't think you understand how the voting system works.  What happens is that all the votes for first place are tallyied up, if there is a state with most votes than it wins.  If there is a tie than all the states voted on for #2 are tallied up, if there is a tie it goes to #3 and so on.

Blain, what you're describing sounds to me like a combination of Instant Runoff Voting and Plurality Voting (the latter of which plagues our current election scheme).  In essence, your method provides a way for one of our states to win with just 10% (+1) of the total votes (there are 10 candidates).  That's not how Condorcet works.

Actually Condorcet's method uses "pairwise contests" between every possible pair of states to determine a winner.

That's correct.  Though I don't recall off the top of my head which state is the winner.  I could look it up but I have to go shoot all my friends across the LAN in just a few minutes.  Is it the state with the most total wins?  I think that's the case in which case my example demonstrates ID as the winner.  WY, though, had the win with the largest margin (i.e. 10 wins pairwise with NH).

Quote
But varrin's only taking the available Condorcet's votes into consideration while the majority of people here are only posting their first place choice.   :-\

First off, I think I made a calculation error.  There was an ID first ranking that was two votes that I *believe* I only counted once (ID>WY>NH).  Hence, ID gets an additional win against both.

But your observation about the lack of available data is also correct.  As you can see, the stats for first place winners (on a percentage basis) are different for the total number of 'votes' here v.s. the votes I could determine pairwise rankings with ID, WY and NH.  There were significantly more WY first places in my sample than in the overall first place tally.

Here's another interesting stat.  Excluding first place ties (they were *all* WY=ID>NH), there were significantly more ID seconds than WY or NH seconds.  That jives as ID came out the winner.  But here's the kicker:  WY firsts were split between ID second and NH second (two and two).  NH firsts had 5 ID seconds and only 1 WY second.  Furthermore, ID firsts *all* ranked WY over NH.

So what does this tell us?  First off, NH has a lot of first place support.  Second, WY-first supporters preference for NH over ID (or vice versa) is not clearly defined.  Third, NH-first supporters seem to be heavily favoring ID over WY.  Fourth, ID supporters seem to heavily favor WY over NH (I didn't count my two votes, but they both add to that trend).

If this thread is reflective of the overal FSP votes, I predict it will be close between NH and ID for first place and WY will actually be a solid but solidly-trailing third.  NH will win if it has the overwhelming first-place support seen on this thread (almost an absolute majority which is enough to win regardless of the 2nd through last place votes).  However, if NH doesn't have quite the first-place support seen here, I suspect ID is the next leading contender based on this: overwhelming support from NH-first people (likely the largest -first group), half-way support from the WY-first people, and, of course, the (I suspect larger-than-we-see-here) ID-first people.

This race isn't over yet ;)

V-

P.S.  In all of my postings about ranking first, second, and third, I have limited discussion to ID, NH, and WY.  I don't think any other state is close enough to warrant consideration and I don't have time to run the matrix for the entire list of 10 (plus, there's not adequate data available).  When I illustrate NH>ID>WY (for example) with respect to an individual vote, the actual vote may have included other states (i.e. MT>NH>DE>ID>ND>WY for example) which were excluded to come up with the sequential ranking of the top three.  Maybe next time I'll add my vote which is now in the mail and was two votes for:

ID > DE > WY > NH > AK > SD > MT > VT > ME > ND  

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.

Blain

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Liberty or Death!
    • Infowars
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2003, 11:34:44 pm »

I don't think I understand this, the state with the most support should be the winner, should it not?  Are you telling me that if NH gets 30% more votes over the runner up that it can still loose?  That doens't seem right to me.  

Logged
The following flash movie sums up values.
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

"A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made an

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2003, 07:48:02 am »

I don't think I understand this, the state with the most support should be the winner, should it not?  Are you telling me that if NH gets 30% more votes over the runner up that it can still loose?  That doens't seem right to me.  

In a 10-way race, NH could get 30% more *first place* votes than the runner up but still lose.  Condorcet's method does not just take into account first place votes.  Based on your model, if NH got 39% of the vote, the runner up would have 30% of the vote (69% for 1st and 2nd places).  That is not an absolute majority, but under plurality voting (the method I think you have in mind) it would win.  Using Condorcet's method, NH could very well lose with 39% of the vote to the second or even third best 1st-place-vote-getter.  In fact, in theory, NH could lose to the state that gets the fewest 1st-place-votes if that state got all the second place votes.  All those second place votes constitute significant support.

Let's assume for a moment that there are 100 votes and only 4 candidate states.  NH gets first place 39 times, WY gets first place 30 times, ID gets first place 20 times, and MT gets first place 11 times (the remaining state, DE, gets zero first-place votes).  Now let's assume for a moment that all the NH, WY, ID and MT voters placed DE in second place.  To keep it simple, we'll make all the votes of the same first place ranking the same:

NH > DE > MT > ID > WY x 39 votes
WY > DE > ID > MT > NH x 30 votes
ID > DE > MT > NH > WY x 20 votes
MT > DE > NH > WY > ID x 11 votes

You would think NH would be the winner because it got 39 first-place votes - 30% more than the runner up.  However, you'll notice the people who didn't put NH first, actually ranked it fairly low, whereas *everyone* (including the NH voters) liked DE enough to put it in second place.  Here's how the pairwise contests stack up:

   DE   NH   WY   ID   MT   Wins
DE   X   61   70   80   89   300
NH   39   X   70   50   39   198
WY   30   30   X   41   30   131
ID   20   50   59   X   59   188
MT   11   61   70   50   X   192

Hence, first place rankings look like this:

NH > WY > ID > MT > DE

But Condorcet rankings look like this:

DE > NH > MT > ID > WY

The *last* place first-place-vote-getter came in first.  The *second* place first-place-vote-getter came in *last*.  Though NH's support was strong (strong enough to put it in second place in this example), DE exceeded it's pairwise competition score by more than 50%.  So while you wouldn't have even considered DE, it's clearly a better candidate because *everyone* liked it very well, though nobody liked it well enough to put it in first place.  Of course, I could have switched it up to make NH do even worse.  I just pulled those rankings (for places 3-5) out of my head.  Regardless, DE shows up the big winner in this example.

So the idea of only posting first-place votes was a bad idea.  Here's another example illustrating how NH could lose with an absolute majority of first place votes:

NH > DE > MT > ID > WY x 51 votes
WY > DE > ID > MT > NH x 20 votes
ID > DE > MT > WY > NH x 15 votes
MT > DE > ID > WY > NH x 14 votes

   DE   NH   WY   ID   MT   Wins
DE   X   49   80   85   86   300
NH   51   X   51   51   51   204
WY   20   49   X   20   20   109
ID   15   49   80   X   35   179
MT   14   49   80   51   X   194

Hence, NH wins first place votes with an absolute majority.  However, the condorcet rankings are:

DE > NH > MT > ID > WY

NH still does well, but with 49 last-place votes it's unable to unseat DE with 100 second-place votes.

So basically, we can't tell squat from this whole thread ;)  Anyone wanna start over and post entire rankings for ballots mailed in?

V-

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.

rdeacon

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1874
  • Six Years Into a Ten Year Sojourn
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2003, 08:47:47 am »

Tony, I could tell you your wife's logic behind her votes if you like (they're the second line, right?)

NH>ID>AK>WY>DE>MT>VT>SD>ND>ME
NH>VT>ME>DE>ID>WY>MT>SD>ND>AK
I do not understand the way of my wife's thinking ???
Logged

rdeacon

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1874
  • Six Years Into a Ten Year Sojourn
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #58 on: September 13, 2003, 08:49:21 am »

This is why I support Instant Runoff over Concorcet...
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5655
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Where do we Stand as of Right Now?
« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2003, 10:07:49 am »

NH > DE > MT > ID > WY x 39 votes
WY > DE > ID > MT > NH x 30 votes
ID > DE > MT > NH > WY x 20 votes
MT > DE > NH > WY > ID x 11 votes

   DE   NH   WY   ID   MT   Wins
DE   X   61   70   80   89   300
NH   39 X   70   50   39   198
WY   30   30  X   41   30   131
ID  20   50   59   X   59   188
MT  11   61   70   50   X   192

The correct pairwise matrix is actually:

    DE   NH   WY   ID   MT   Losses
DE  X   61   70   80   89   0
NH  39   X   70   50   39   2
WY  30   30   X   41   30   4
ID  20   50   59   X   50   1
MT  11   61   70   50   X   1


(There was a typo in MT's votes versus ID in yours.)

Quote
But Condorcet rankings look like this:

DE > NH > MT > ID > WY

Well, Condorcet works by selecting the candidate with no losses, not by summing the wins.  So DE does come in first, but after you eliminate DE, MT and ID tie for 2nd (both have no losses, but ID does have an additional tie, so that may be grounds for dropping ID to 3rd), NH comes 4th, and WY is last.  So that demonstrates your point a fortiori.  But the below is wrong:

Quote
So the idea of only posting first-place votes was a bad idea.  Here's another example illustrating how NH could lose with an absolute majority of first place votes:

NH > DE > MT > ID > WY x 51 votes
WY > DE > ID > MT > NH x 20 votes
ID > DE > MT > WY > NH x 15 votes
MT > DE > ID > WY > NH x 14 votes

   DE   NH   WY   ID   MT   Wins
DE   X   49   80   85   86   300
NH   51   X   51   51   51   204
WY   20   49   X   20   20   109
ID   15   49   80   X   35   179
MT   14   49   80   51   X   194

Hence, NH wins first place votes with an absolute majority.  However, the condorcet rankings are:

DE > NH > MT > ID > WY

Nope.  NH does not lose; therefore, NH is the winner.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2003, 10:14:07 am 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
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up