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 18412 times)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2002, 10:33:59 am »

Yeah, we're going to remove the practice poll ASAP.  Matt Cheselka is working on a new practice poll, which we will test for several weeks to see if strategic voting is lessened, and then it's gone.
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

craft_6

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
  • Constitutional Libertarian
Re:experiment
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2002, 10:42:36 am »

Why I gave 0 points to more than one state, even though I gave all 10 states non-zero ratings:  

I considered the rating as a rough approximation of the FSP's chances of success.  The states which I rated below 50 are states I wouldn't recommend selecting, due to high voting populations or socialist tendencies.  They would not be impossible to succeed in, just very difficult.  Why give any points to a state I consider a poor choice, even if another state is worse?  
Logged
Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!
http://www.badnarik.org
Badnarik for President, 2004

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2002, 10:52:31 am »


Why I gave 0 points to more than one state, even though I gave all 10 states non-zero ratings:  

I considered the rating as a rough approximation of the FSP's chances of success.  The states which I rated below 50 are states I wouldn't recommend selecting, due to high voting populations or socialist tendencies.  They would not be impossible to succeed in, just very difficult.  Why give any points to a state I consider a poor choice, even if another state is worse?  


I can understand that logic, and that's basically what Eddie and I were discussing.  If people are nearly indifferent among some choices, I don't see it as a problem that they give them all the same number of points, and I don't think it will affect the final vote adversely.
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 #33 on: October 31, 2002, 10:54:34 pm »

Quote

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. 


I don't want to sound like a broken record but again I think this is attacking the symptom and not the cause.  I as always will use an example to illustrate my point.  

1. I have NO knowledge of what anyone else is going to vote.

2. So as far as I can tell there is an equal chance of each of say 5 states to win and I have 10 points to spend.

3.  I like New Hampshire best and Delaware 2nd.

4.Say each point I spend improves the chances of that state winning by 1%

5. if New Hampshire wins I am very happy!  I am as happy as if you gave me $100.  If Delaware wins then I am as happy as if you gave me $80

6.Let's caclulate my the utility of voting 2 different ways.
10 points for NH
9 points for NH and 1 point for Delaware.

by spending a point it basically gives me 1% of the value of my happiness if that state is chosen.
10 point for NH = 10% improved chance NH is selected
$100 * .10 = $10 of value
9 points for NH 1 point for DE
$100 * .09 + $80 * .01  =  $9.80

-Because voting for a candidate you like less than your favorite actually takes votes away from your favorite the economically optimal solution is to vote all of your points to your favorite.  To sarafice even one vote for your favorite to give to your second favorite is not optimal.  Actually the BEST real world expample and exact analogy is if you went to the poll this Nov. except you would be allowed to vote 10 times instead of once.  Are you going to start to vote for demorcats or repulicans on a few of these votes?  No you aren't because obviously you should vote for your favorite choice especially if you know they all have an equal chance of winning.  This is an exact analogy.  If you dissagree please tell me how it is not.
-Eddie
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:experiment
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2002, 10:24:13 am »


-Because voting for a candidate you like less than your favorite actually takes votes away from your favorite the economically optimal solution is to vote all of your points to your favorite.  To sarafice even one vote for your favorite to give to your second favorite is not optimal.  


It sounds like you'd be taking a rather large risk here.  If you bet everything on one state, and that state doesn't make the cut, haven't you effectively deprived yourself of a voice in which of the other states might be the next best choice?

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2002, 11:16:25 am »


by spending a point it basically gives me 1% of the value of my happiness if that state is chosen.


This only works if people are not risk-averse.  However, I think when it comes to a decision like a move people are definitely risk-averse: they want to make sure their worst choices don't win!  Since you don't know the probability of any state's winning, it's best to spread your votes around a little bit if you are risk-averse, in order to prevent one of your worst choices from winning.
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 #36 on: November 01, 2002, 02:51:07 pm »

That is a good point Jason and I almost talked about it in my previous post but my posts tend to get really long and go over too many different points.  

First by bringing up that this is not optimal if you are risk adverse to me it sounds like you are conceeding that it you get the best expected value when you put all of your votes towards your favorite.  Correct me if I'm misstaken.  

Next you say that putting all of you eggs in one basket is risky and that you certainly don't want you worst choice to win.  This might be true.  People are most risk averse when there is a potentially large negative result that they want to avoid.  In this case it would be if you really didn't like one state.  So you do as you say and spread out your votes with the goal of avoiding your worst choice.  But this is just a crude appoximation and much less effective way of voting against one state.  Say for 5 states you like one and hate another.  So you vote  4, 2, 2, 2, 0.  If you were allowed to cast negative votes then this would be the same vote as  2, 0, 0, 0, -2.  But you still have 6 more points you can invest so you vote would be 5, 0, 0, 0, -5.  So if you are worried about risk averse people then you should deffinately allow at least negative votes so their voice can be heard as loud as someone who strongly favors one choice.
Point is that still CC voting favors people who put all of their votes into one candidate.
Essentially CC voting is the EXACT same voting system we use now in this country except that instead of a boolean choice you have a 10 point discrete choice.  It's like if I was allowed to give 1/2 vote to bush and 1/2 a vote to Brown.  The RANKING system is the exact same system as approval voting except instead of a boolean choice you have a 100 point discrete distribution.  Doing this allows you to basically "strongly" approve one guy over another guy you just "approve" of.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2002, 03:18:56 pm »


First by bringing up that this is not optimal if you are risk adverse to me it sounds like you are conceeding that it you get the best expected value when you put all of your votes towards your favorite.  Correct me if I'm misstaken.  


That appears to be correct, with the crucial assumption that your vote affects the probability that the state will be chosen to an extent that you can estimate.  Your example puts a known probability value on the effect of your vote.  If there were complete uncertainty (probability values were unknowable), then perhaps your analysis would change there as well.  I haven't figured that out yet.  Under complete uncertainty, expected utility analysis breaks down.

Quote

that they want to avoid.  In this case it would be if you really didn't like one state.  So you do as you say and spread out your votes with the goal of avoiding your worst choice.  But this is just a crude appoximation and much less effective way of voting against one state.  


But what if there are, say, four or five states that you want to vote against?  Then giving a lot of points to your favorite(s) and some to the next few good candidates seems rational.

Quote

Say for 5 states you like one and hate another.  So you vote  4, 2, 2, 2, 0.  If you were allowed to cast negative votes then this would be the same vote as  2, 0, 0, 0, -2.  But you still have 6 more points you can invest so you vote would be 5, 0, 0, 0, -5.  So if you are worried about risk averse people then you should deffinately allow at least negative votes so their voice can be heard as loud as someone who strongly favors one choice.


I'm afraid allowing negative votes would increase people's confusion and complicate tabulation.  Most people don't even know what "absolute value" means.

Under approval voting, assuming expected utilities and risk neutrality, wouldn't you still have an incentive to rate one state 100 and the others zero?
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

Charley

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Where's the country I grew up in?
Re:experiment
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2002, 05:52:21 pm »

Maybe I'm dense but why not have a straight ranking of the remaining candidates?  Lowest vote total wins.  
Logged
Charley in WC

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:experiment
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2002, 07:36:26 pm »

Is there anyway to narrow down the choices before the final vote?
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:experiment
« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2002, 09:56:24 pm »

Quote
That appears to be correct, with the crucial assumption that your vote affects the probability that the state will be chosen to an extent that you can estimate.  Your example puts a known probability value on the effect of your vote.  If there were complete uncertainty (probability values were unknowable), then perhaps your analysis would change there as well.  I haven't figured that out yet.  Under complete uncertainty, expected utility analysis breaks down.

I will analyse this in a post in the near furture.  My posts always end up being long. :)

Quote
But what if there are, say, four or five states that you want to vote against?  Then giving a lot of points to your favorite(s) and some to the next few good candidates seems rational.

Yes indeed!  But bringing up one specific example where CC voting does work well doesn't prove that it is a good system.  You have to dissprove my assertions of weakness to show that it always works well.  The voting system used in the US now works well if you like only one candidate and you really don't like the other ones.  Also even though you like say 2 candidates your vote is still diluted by only getting to put 5 points towards each as opposed to 10 points each could get in the rating system.

Quote
I'm afraid allowing negative votes would increase people's confusion and complicate tabulation.  Most people don't even know what "absolute value" means.

Sadly I agree the 'negative' voting idea was supposed to be a compromise idea by me where we could still use CC voting but fix some of it's flaws.

Quote
Under approval voting, assuming expected utilities and risk neutrality, wouldn't you still have an incentive to rate one state 100 and the others zero?

Yes!  the problem isn't voting 100 to 0 the problem is that in CC voting when you vote 100 you then give all the other states a 0 even the ones you like because you have spent your total.  In approval voting with a 100 point scale you could give your favorite state 100 your second state 80 third 50 and the rest 0.  There is no way to take some of the points from your second choice and then improve your first choice i.e. there is no incentive to vote 100, 0, 0, 0, 0 because you can still spend point on whichever ones you want.

It seems like you agree that there might some issues with CC voting although we dissagree about how severe they might be.  The real way to win me over is to convince me that the rating system is bad.  Here I'll start that debate for us in my next post.
-Eddie
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2002, 09:58:35 pm »

Charley - not sure what you mean.  Do you mean assigning 1 point to first-place vote, 2 to second-place vote, etc.?  That is one possible voting system.  Usually, though, you'd want to "reward" the top few choices a little more, so for example: 0 points to 1st choice, 3 points to 2nd choice, 5 points to 3rd choice, 7 points to 4th choice, 8 points to 5th choice, and so on...lowest point total then winning.  But with a ranking, instant-runoff voting actually has some desirable properties that the above arrangement does not - for one thing, the points you assign to the rankings are somewhat arbitrary.

But I'm afraid the discussion is mostly academic because changing cumulative count is extremely unlikely, unless a massive consensus in favor of an alternative develops. :(

JT - the Research Committee considered narrowing down the choices further, but there was an outcry against that as "undemocratic" and so on, which is a legitimate concern.  So we opted for an absolute population cutoff.  Eliminating any further states would be fraught with controversy.
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 #42 on: November 01, 2002, 10:13:37 pm »

Jason:  "Eddie the rating system is sooo crappy!"

Eddie: "Oh really?  What makes you think that?"

Jason: "Well Eddie in the rating system you are allowed to really like 2 states and give them both a score of 100"

Eddie: "So what's wrong with that?"

Jason: "Well if you really like only 1 state then shouldn't you be able to have a stronger positive affect on that one state than someone who like 2 different states?  Because the best score you can give is 100 while the other guy gave 2 100s."

Eddie: "No I dissagree I think just because you like 2 states doesn't mean you can't  like both as much as the person who likes just one 1."

Third party: "I dunno Eddie, I think that the rating system causes voting inflation because many people would probably give all their prefered states scores of 100.  In the other sytem you couldn't give all the state the highest scores."

Eddie: "That fine if you give more than one state a score of 100 but you must realise that if you really like your first choice and your 3rd choice is just okay then giving both a score of 100 is NOT a good idea.  Yeah it will your choice number 3 to beat out the lower ones but then also you are not helping your choice #3 beat out your choice #1 in effect you are saying 'choice one and three you are the same in my mind' when really you like your number one choice alot more.  So you lost your chance to distinguish between something you really like and something that is just okay."

etc.

etc.

etc.

-Eddie
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:experiment
« Reply #43 on: November 01, 2002, 10:20:43 pm »

Quote
JT - the Research Committee considered narrowing down the choices further, but there was an outcry against that as "undemocratic" and so on, which is a legitimate concern.  So we opted for an absolute population cutoff.  Eliminating any further states would be fraught with controversy.

Not necissarily Jason!  People just got mad last time because they didn't have a say in it.  Why not let people vote on this kind of thing?  There are several fun ways of cutting down on the number of states in a way that gets everyone involved.
There could be just a vote where you indicate one or two states you'd like eliminated.  Next to it you could have the research comittee's recomendation.
I liked my elimistate idea where the research comittee will pick a state to be eliminated and then the membership does a vote of confidence on it, just indicating whether it should be eliminated or not.  I really think people would enjoy that and it would help keep them involved in the project.

-Eddie
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:experiment
« Reply #44 on: November 01, 2002, 10:35:12 pm »

Yeah - I'm just worried about having some kind of proxy vote on the state before the time comes.  The 2nd method you mention might alleviate this problem...but then a few hundred people have signed up in the last 2 months on the assumption that 10 states are being considered.  I can see maybe South Dakota being eliminated without too much fuss but on the others there would probably be controversy. ;)
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   Go Up