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 19159 times)

phylinidaho

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Friend of the FSP
Re:experiment
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2002, 08:55:01 pm »


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.  


Perhaps my voting was strategic, although I didn't think of it in that context. The reason I gave 75 points to Montana was that I feel that strongly that it is the state most likely to be successful as a free state. Having given the 75 points, I didn't have much left to allocate to other states.  I rated North Dakota and Idaho quite high on the other list  as an indication of how I would feel if they were chosen, as compared with the other 7 states.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2002, 09:09:04 pm »



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.



That is a possibility that concerns me.  Hopefully the cumulative count practice vote on the website will show a change.  The thing is, strategic voting would probably hurt you in the final vote, because it really isn't clear which state will be the frontrunner by then.  NH was an early frontrunner, but now Montana appears to be the top candidate... Tim has made a powerful case for Wyoming, and my own analysis indicates that Wyoming, Delaware, and Alaska are the top 3.  So it's all up in the air at this point!
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

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:experiment
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2002, 10:34:47 pm »

I'll try to shed some light on the Hawes paradox... ;D

One problem may be that I'm just very new to the whole cummulative count scenario and just haven't figured out how to get it right yet.  For instance, your suggestion about giving at least one point to your #9 position state to simply give it an edge over #10 is well taken.

I gave Alaska, Maine, Wyoming, and Idaho all ten points even though they rank from 75 to 40 on my rating scale due to what I considered our overall chances of success in those states.  Idaho ended up getting the same points as Alaska, even though I considered Alaska a better choice, because I wanted to arrange my votes in such a way as to substantially cut them off from what I considered the worst choices.

After Montana and North Dakota, I think our chances of overall success decline sharply, plateau, and then decline sharply again.  The block of states that all got "10's" did so because I consider them to be less viable candidates (in their rated order), but I consider our overall chances of success as approximately the same in them for various reasons.

I dont' know if that helps explain any method in my madness.   ;D

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:experiment
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2002, 06:08:50 am »

Hey Jason, I agree it will be pretty close no matter which voting system is used.  So in reality it doesn't matter all that much.  But just because it didn't make a big difference here doesn't mean it won't later.

#1  The main problem and reason people don't give points to their #9 choice is because it hurts them to do so.  Look at Robert's he gave his top choice only 30 points and he probably filled his ballot out honestly.  And let's say he like Montana every bit as much as I like New Hampshire.  Well if I give 100 points to New Hampshire (which I probably will do in the final vote) my vote will be 3 times as powerful as his in the end.  He wanted to say "HEY I REALLY LIKE THIS ONE" but in reality because he only gave 30 points his vote didn't really help Montana much.  Okay so let's say we say "Gee Eddie don't do that you shouldn't give all you your points to one state" but that's like if we were doing the rating system and we say "Gee don't give your #1 choice a ranking of 100 unless you REALLY think it's the absolutely perfect place" well that doesn't make sense because you want it to win!  So basically if you vote honestly your favorite choice get hurt.  It's important to note that my choices were responcible for 30% of New Hampshire's total CC points and Robert was only responcilbe for 10% of Montana's points.  In fact if I had voted all 100 point for New Hampshire (which I probably will) it would have won!  Despite the unfortunate fact that Montana seemed much more popular than NH when looked at from any other angle.  

#2 There is no way to "Anti-vote" in CC voting.  Say there are 6 choices I want NH really bad and say you don't care except that you REALLY DON'T want NH.  The correct result should be a tie because our opinions are equally strong.  But instead NH get 100 points and all the other states get 20 points.  

#3 Finnaly I think people round alot because it is difficult to go back and add up all of your points and make sure it's 100 "...no wait it's only 85 so I can but maybe 5 more here 3 more there 2 and 1 and... gee I guess 3 more to the top and second one no wait now I'm at 102 so I take one off the second and third or fourth choice?..."  etc.
(speaking of which whatever we use to count the votes will have to independently verify that only 100 points were used hopefully that won't be much of an issue though since there is already the 10 point poll that does that)

Anyway that my speal again, as you can see I prefer the ranking system.  I think Idaho sneaking in 3rd is an indication that this way of voting is better at finding 'compromise' states (ie states with a broad base of moderately high opinions) than the CC voting is.  If we don't switch systems I still think we should REALLY consider letting people give state negative points so the issue in #2 can be resolved.

-Eddie
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:experiment
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2002, 06:27:08 am »

The problem is strategic voting, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to strategically vote in the rating system.  So what is the downside of the ranking system I just don't see one.  There are plenty of people who appoligise for the CC voting but I just want to know what is the downside of ranking?  Please make a post.
Thanks,
      Eddie
Logged

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:experiment
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2002, 07:41:42 am »

Jason,

You asked why ppl gave states no votes.

I gave no votes to states that I do not want to live
in.  Why hurt the states I want to live in by wasting
votes states I dont like.  If this was a final vote, my
first thought is that ppl will give 100 percent of their
votes to the state they want the most.  In your shaking
up of the number it appears Alaska was one place down
by 1 vote.  So if I has given Alaska 45 instead of 40 then
Alaska would have been higher up by one position.

Ranking was just an order after the first 4 or 5 position.
After the first 3 or 4 positions I would not care because
I did not like that places in the first place. Positon 8 - 10
could be in any order.  I didnt care.  To be they are equilly
bad.  You asked to order so I put then in order.

I like the idea of negative votes but it would not work
because person one loves alaska and gives then high
numbers, person 2 hates alaska and gives them mag
neg numbers, kind of balancing it out.

The state that gets choisen would then be the one
that brings out the least emotions, because the love
and hate would kind of balance it out.

I would probably give my most favorite votes to Alaska
and Delware would be my most disliked.  Then someone
will knock my Alaska vote out with their dont like vote
and I would knock their Delware vote out with my
dont like vote.

Thus we are down to the least liked and dont liked and
I feel a large group of ppl would not move to the least of
the good and bad.

my .02
« Last Edit: October 26, 2002, 07:45:08 am by wolf_tracker »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2002, 09:25:44 am »

Eddie - It's true that voting honestly may reduce the probability of your #1 choice winning.  But voting honestly will increase the probability of your #2 or #3 or #4 choice winning if your #1 choice doesn't!  In the end, I think almost all the states will have an equal chance of winning.  People have talked about N.H. and Montana a lot, but both are sinking in popular perception as new data and new analyses come in.  N.D. appears to be slightly superior to MT, and WY may be as well.  NH because of its population and the new election data coming in will probably fall below VT and DE in my quantitative analyses.  Since voting dishonestly only works if you know your top choice is also one of the top two choices of the group, I don't think it will make sense to vote dishonestly when the final ballot comes out.
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 #22 on: October 29, 2002, 08:15:25 pm »

Jason I dissagree :)
First off I don't think we should call this voting "disshonestly" because I really don't think it is.  I voted the way I wanted to.  IT's not disshonest to say vote for Bush instead of Brown because you really don't want Gore.  People make these decisions and it is impossible to vote "disshonestly" unless you are voting randomly.

This is my "proof" of the sillyness of an "Honest" CC vote.  I am going to translate this into an economic issue so we Libertarians will feel at home.  

You have $100 Million dollars to spend on a presidential campaign.  This amount can SIGNIFICANTLY influence the outcome of the campaign and assume all 4 candidate had at least an okay chance of winning (Bush, Gore, Brown, Nader).  Negative ads are not allowed.  
Would you spend $100 Million on Harry Brown?  Or would you spend $50 Million on Brown, $35 Million on Bush and $15 Million on Gore?
Seriously would you spend money on either Gore or Nader????  Jason thinks you should! :)
Personally I think I might spend $50 million on Brown and $50 Million on negative campaigns against Gore but negative ads are NOT allowed.
The point is limited resources and the $15 million you spend on Gore could be helping Brown.

I hope this helps people to put this in perspective.
-Eddie
« Last Edit: October 29, 2002, 08:17:09 pm by Eddie_Bradford »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2002, 09:54:30 pm »

But spending on Bush is the same as spending negative ads on Gore and Nader!  Also, the example doesn't work quite as well, because for us Bush, Gore, and Nader are all virtually just as bad, while that situation doesn't apply to the states.  If you think that all states except 2 are terrible, worthless choices, then certainly don't give points to them.  But if some of them are pretty good choices, just not as good as your top picks, then they should receive points.

Allowing negative points in CC wouldn't make sense - it would allow infinite negative and infinite positive: if I give 50 million and 100 votes to one state and negative 50 million to another state, that would fit within the rules of CC, if negative votes were allowed.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2002, 09:55:52 pm by Jason P. Sorens »
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 #24 on: October 30, 2002, 02:22:05 am »

Quote
But spending on Bush is the same as spending negative ads on Gore and Nader!

I assume you mean Spending on one candidate is the same as spending negative ads on all the other candidates.  This is true except it costs alot more!  Spending $50 million on someone is like spend $50 million in negative ads on EACH of the 3 other candidates!  So it's 50 M verses 150 M  Just like in CC voting.  Say you REALLY don't want New Hampshire you should be able to spend -10 on it.  Instead you have to put like 2 point in each of the 5 other choices.  Again back to my other example I love NH you hate it I vote 10 points for it and you vote 2 point for each of the 5 other choices NH wins in a landslide 10 points to 2 points.  We both love/hate it equally but I win because of the voting system bias.  Just like our system now is biased.

Quote
Also, the example doesn't work quite as well, because for us Bush, Gore, and Nader are all virtually just as bad
This is true but you also use "Virtually" and according to your logic you should still spend money on the one you like even slightly better.  The reason most people wouldn't is because they know that the money can be spent elsewhere more productivly.

Okay still trying to get my point across...
You are going to win a car.  It will either be a pinto, a ford, or the James Bond Rolls Royce.  There is an equal chance of any three.  You are allowed to spend 100 points towards any of them that will improve the probablity of wining that type.  Everyone would spend all 100 poins of it on the Rolls Royce.  But according to the logic used here we should spend some on the ford because it is better than the pinto.  We say "no dood!  Improving the probablility of the ford is not worth the sacrafice being made by not spending the points on the Rolls Royce"

Quote
Allowing negative points in CC wouldn't make sense - it would allow infinite negative and infinite positive: if I give 50 million and 100 votes to one state and negative 50 million to another state, that would fit within the rules of CC, if negative votes were allowed.

LOL! What the heck Jason?  You're smoking the crack on this one! :) Obviously Your total magnitude cannot exceed 100.   By this logic I could speed down the highway at 200 mph by driving backwards!  When I get pulled over I would say "but officer I was going -200 miles per hour which is clearly less than the posted speed limit!"
-Eddie
« Last Edit: October 30, 2002, 02:24:04 am by Eddie_Bradford »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2002, 10:21:29 am »


I assume you mean Spending on one candidate is the same as spending negative ads on all the other candidates.  This is true except it costs alot more!  Spending $50 million on someone is like spend $50 million in negative ads on EACH of the 3 other candidates!  So it's 50 M verses 150 M  Just like in CC voting.  Say you REALLY don't want New Hampshire you should be able to spend -10 on it.  Instead you have to put like 2 point in each of the 5 other choices.  Again back to my other example I love NH you hate it I vote 10 points for it and you vote 2 point for each of the 5 other choices NH wins in a landslide 10 points to 2 points.  We both love/hate it equally but I win because of the voting system bias.  Just like our system now is biased.


But this happens only if the other person doesn't particularly like any other candidate.  If he sort of likes Montana and gives it 6 points but hates New Hampshire, and the other person hates Montana but really loves New Hampshire and gives it 10 points, then NH wins, but it's hard to see that as unfair.

Quote

Okay still trying to get my point across...
You are going to win a car.  It will either be a pinto, a ford, or the James Bond Rolls Royce.  There is an equal chance of any three.  You are allowed to spend 100 points towards any of them that will improve the probablity of wining that type.  Everyone would spend all 100 poins of it on the Rolls Royce.  But according to the logic used here we should spend some on the ford because it is better than the pinto.  We say "no dood!  Improving the probablility of the ford is not worth the sacrafice being made by not spending the points on the Rolls Royce"


Well, I disagree that state choice is that way.  Almost all the states are good candidates; there certainly is no Rolls Royce-Ford relationship among them.

Quote

LOL! What the heck Jason?  You're smoking the crack on this one! :) Obviously Your total magnitude cannot exceed 100.  


So you mean people would be allowed to distribute 100 positive votes and -100 negative votes?  But that's what we have now!  All you're doing is changing the scale.  Let's say we use your system, and you assign points to five candidates this way:

State 1               +40 points
State 2               +35 points
State 3               +25 points
State 4                -15 points
State 5                -85 points

You can send the same message if negative points are not allowed:

State 1               +30 points
State 2               +28 points
State 3               +25 points
State 4               +17 pointsState 5                0 points

Allowing negative points just spreads the values out more, but that's true for everyone's vote, so the difference in systems doesn't affect the result systematically.  There may be some circumstances where different systems would yield a different result, but it wouldn't be clear which one was superior in that case.
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 #26 on: October 30, 2002, 05:30:11 pm »

No no no.  Jason you can spend only 100 points whether they are positive or negative.  So you can spend 100 points on New Hampshire OR you can spend -100 points on Montana OR you can spend 50 points on New Hampshire and -50 points on Montana.  The sum of the magnitudes (ie absolute value) cannot exceed 100.  You can spend +90 points and -10 points OR +40 and -60 point but after you take the absolute value of each number and then sum them together the total cannot exceed 100.
And yes this DOES matter.  I have already given the most obvious situation ubove.  I put 100 points in for New Hampshire, Bob puts in -100 points for New Hampshire and then it would be tied as it should be.  This is instead of spreading out 20 points for all states except NH.  You admit that this is a problem in this quote

Quote
But this happens only if the other person doesn't particularly like any other candidate.


I think it should be okay if somene holds this opinion.  But Jason even that is beside the point because I have choosen an extreme example to more clearly illustrate the problem.  This problem will exist in many people's vote to a less degree.  Okay watch as I dassle you with yet another numerical example.
If I vote 50 for New Hampshire and -50 for Montana you say that I can do the same thing with  the current system.  This is NOT so the Mathamatical equivalent in non-negative numbers is this: 4 state choices
100 for New Hampshire   50 for state A,B   0 for Montana
This maintains the 100 point preferance of NH over Montana and also maintains the 50 point spread of NH over the other states.  In order to do this I need 200 points which I don't have!!!!  
The mainly fallacy I see here is that somehow in the ranking system people think that when you give 2 candidates a score of 100 and the rest 0 you are somehow "voting twice" the most obvious example of this was when Elizabeth said "But Eddie if we do your system then everyone would just give each state a score of 100!" what we all need to realise is that if I gave each state a vote of 100 then I have for all intents and purposes not voted at all because I have not affected the outcome.  We cannot have any kind of meaningful discussion about voting until everyone realises this fact.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2002, 05:40:17 pm »

Well, those are all valid points, and that's why I did this experiment with the rating method, to see whether in the real world it does differ from cumulative count - and apparently, the results aren't that much different.
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 #28 on: October 30, 2002, 06:36:04 pm »

No I agree Jason and I hope I didn't say anything that sounded harsh.  I realise that there are many voting system that work very well and in all likelyhood the result will turn out the same.  Again sorry if I sounded harsh I didn't mean to.  Somtimes the points I make are worded poorly and confusing.  Anyway I'm happy just as long as you understand the points I was trying to make.  Thanks for doing this experiment.
-Eddie
Logged

craft_6

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
  • Constitutional Libertarian
Re:experiment
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2002, 10:14:40 am »

The best way to produce an "honest" vote (one where people vote for what they want, rather than against what others want) would be to immediately stop publishing the practice vote results.  

Someone suggested doing this after membership reaches 4,000, but it may be better to stop now, before the preferences of the next 3,000 members are known.  This would leave an element of mystery in the final decision, and help ensure that all 10 states are analyzed objectively.

The message boards might give an indication of the way people are leaning, of course, but there is at least some level of doubt that those who post frequently are representative of the entire membership.  I suspect that many of those who post frequently are the most committed to their choices, while those who merely lurk are more undecided.

Libertarians often lament mainstream voters being herded into their decisions on Election Day by the media releasing poll results showing only two viable candidates.  We shouldn't follow the same practice ourselves.
Logged
Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!
http://www.badnarik.org
Badnarik for President, 2004
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up