On Apr 11, 2010, at 12:00 AM, WarrenS wrote:
>> Yes, that's how things should work. And I believe that is how things
>> also will work in most cases. Strategic plans are considered to be
>> something negative in most societies,
> --unfortunately, this disregards the reality that 90% of honest
> Nader voters in 2000
> did not vote for him,
Ok, maybe I should have excluded plurality when I said "in most cases"
since plurality is a quite common method (I was mainly thinking about
ranking based methods). Most Nader supporters that voted for one of
the main candidates were however probably not strategic but did so
only because they were in a way forced to.
> 80-95% of Australian voters vote strategically etc.
> It is you who here are exhibiting "wishful thinking" if you imagine
> (with zero evidence) this "negative view" will somehow change
Australia is a special case. I guess you can ruin any system if you
really try to (I think they have mandatory full ranking and you can
get around that by using some predetermined "strategish" party
guidance). It is not the people who want to vote strategically but the
system that more or less forces them to do so. I don't expect similar
behaviour to emerge in most cases, and in systems that don't have the
Australian additional rules in them.
How about Burlington then? Did you observe some serious strategic
voting? Maybe some (irrational) truncation in order not to help the
competing candidates. What else? My learning from Burlington was that
sincere voting may well be dominant in the future since it seemed to
be quite dominant already now. People may of course also learn
strategies after some delay but I don't have any evidence of such a
trend in Burlington.
>>> There's a word for people who imagine one of the worst results, but
>>> simultaneously imagine that only they themselves have the power,
>>> some especially tricky maneuver, to change that to the best result.
>>> The word
>>> isn't "wishful", it's "paranoid".
> --hee hee. Well, it is some of both.
> But in any case, DH3 strategy makes sense because it might work (so
> do it) or it might not but won't harm the voter (so do it) provided
> the voter believes D winning is very unlikely.
They might learn to estimate the probabilities more realistically
after trying the strategy once :-).
> It is just like right now in the USA, voters do not vote Nader, even
> if he is their honest favorite. This act is justified in their
> minds because they think Nader winning is very unlikely. It is the
> exact same thing.
What is very different is that in the Nader case they vote for someone
else since that is an extremely rational way to improve the expected
> The problem is, certain of my philosophical opponents, want to
> pretend it is magically different when Condorcet voting comes in.
> Suddenly then, human nature will reverse, nobody will do what
> they've done for 200 years,
> and society will somehow urge them not to be strategic, even though
> any sample of op-ed pages (if they'd bothered to look at them) would
> show a massive majority advocating "don't vote for Nader even if he
> is your favorite."
> And then - and this really takes the cake - my opponents say that
> *I* am exhibiting "wishful thinking."
>> I agree that DH3 strategy in the given example is a quite long shot.
>> Word "wishful" could be related to reasons why people participate in
>> lotteries. They typically know that it is more likely that they will
>> lose money than to win money, but people will play despite of this.
> --well, you are again somewhat denying reality? Look, the chance
> your vote
> will affect any election in any way is minute. Yet, huge numbers of
> people (a) vote
> and (b) vote strategically.
One way to approach this is not to think about one vote only but all
the votes of the similar minded voters.
>> They "wish" that they will win, and they may even enjoy the game. The
>> given example is even a longer shot than lottery in the sense that it
>> is not even easy to imagine a rational path how people might vote (in
>> a rational or semi-rational way) so that the strategy would work.
>> Another way to describe the "wish" is that the voters are clutching a
> --another way is, "You would say that any vote by anybody ever, is
> just irrational wishfulness." Which is fine, but why do you waste
> our time with this?
Voting is a rational "strategy" since voting improves the expected
outcome. And one voter together with other similar minded voters may
often be the force that changes the outcome.