Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RangeVoting] X leads to 2-party domination

Expand Messages
  • Juho
    ... My best understanding is that Range would offer a continuum between full Approval and sincere utilities based Range. Sincere Range assumes non-competitive
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mar 1, 2008, at 3:41 , Dave Ketchum wrote:

      > Range: Scoring based on voter assigned ratings, competitive
      > with
      > Condorcet - please think carefully about this pair.

      My best understanding is that Range would offer a continuum between
      full Approval and sincere utilities based Range.

      Sincere Range assumes non-competitive voters and therefore strategies
      have no impact on the the third party candidates. Thus sincere Range
      would perform well, except that of course also it suffers from single
      winner districts in the same way as any other singe winner methods.
      But having fully sincere voters is naturally rare.

      Strong Approval orientation would make the method close to Approval.

      Intermediate Approval orientation is problematic as we know since the
      votes of strategic voters have more power than the votes of non-
      strategic voters. That may invite also the former sincere voters to
      use Approval strategy. If there is a mixture of sincere and strategic
      voters then the more powerful strategic votes may have the impact
      that the "third party laws of Approval" become dominant already
      before the 50%-50% split.

      One more Range style is use of normalized but otherwise sincere
      utilities, but I couldn't quickly identify any clear differences to
      sincere Range with respect to handling of third party candidates.

      Condorcet seems to provide a relatively smooth behaviour and is
      therefore more stable with respect to growing third party candidates
      than the other mentioned methods. But I wouldn't recommend Condorcet
      either if one wants a political system that is not 2-party or few
      party dominated. The main and common alternative to single winner
      districts and related few party domination is to aim at some sort of
      proportional representation methods.

      It is however possible to develop also singe winner district based
      methods that are proportional, but that requires additional rules to
      force proportional balance between the districts. These "rigged"
      methods are thus not included in my earlier comments on the nature of
      single winner districts.

      Note also that the results of the third party candidate analysis can
      be applied also to single winner elections. In that case it is
      typical that allowing large parties to dominate is in line with what
      the society wants and aims at (proportional random single winner
      methods would provide an alternative to this). => In this kind of
      elections Condorcet becomes recommendable again.

      Juho






      ___________________________________________________________
      Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal
      http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
    • brokenladdercalendar
      ... I guess I was hoping for something fairly decisive. If the idea is Condorcet burial is strategically wise if not that many other voters do it , then you
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "warren_d_smith31" <wds@...> wrote:
        > 2. Is burial worth it in Condorcet methods, Bayesian-regret-wise?
        > Well certainly it CAN be.

        I guess I was hoping for something fairly decisive. If the idea is
        "Condorcet burial is strategically wise if not that many other voters
        do it", then you have to figure out some kind of reasonable Nash
        equilibrium. If not a lot of voters are doing it, then it will be
        advantageous, so a lot more voters will do it, so then it will become
        disadvantageous, so then fewer voters will do it...etc.

        My guess is that you are either in a situation where not that many
        voters are doing it, so that it's a "safe bet", or you're in a
        situation where so many voters are doing it that you're probably going
        to get the dark horse no matter what, so you might as well bury. I
        think the point would be to try a bunch of trials over a range of
        strategic-ness, from 0% to 100%, and see whether the average voter
        would have a positive or negative expected value from burying --
        assuming that there is some edge case between "dark horse doesn't win"
        and "dark horse wins", where it would make a significant difference.

        Your chicken game sounds similar to the prisoners' dilemma.
      • brokenladdercalendar
        ... well, no. warren, at least, assumes a mixture of competative and non-competitive voters. or more strictly speaking, some significant degree of sincere
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho <juho4880@...> wrote:
          > Sincere Range assumes non-competitive voters and therefore strategies
          > have no impact on the the third party candidates.

          well, no. warren, at least, assumes a mixture of competative and
          non-competitive voters. or more strictly speaking, some significant
          degree of sincere voting. now there's a case to be made that plenty
          of competitive voters will be sincere with range voting, and that's
          not a contradiction:
          http://rangevoting.org/RVstrat.html

          -clay
        • Juho
          I covered the mixture of competitive an non-competitive voters in another paragraph ( Intermediate Approval orientation ). I believe Range will differ from
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I covered the mixture of competitive an non-competitive voters in
            another paragraph ("Intermediate Approval orientation"). I believe
            Range will differ from Approval so that there will be some sincere
            Range style voters. The number of those may depend on the environment
            where the election is held.

            The concept of a competitive voter that casts a sincere Range vote is
            not quite clear. The voter might not be aware of the strategic
            opportunities. Or maybe the voters becomes non-competitive and
            therefore does not vote strategically. Or maybe that include a claim
            that often a sincere vote would be strategically optimal.

            Juho


            On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:56 , brokenladdercalendar wrote:

            > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho <juho4880@...> wrote:
            >> Sincere Range assumes non-competitive voters and therefore strategies
            >> have no impact on the the third party candidates.
            >
            > well, no. warren, at least, assumes a mixture of competative and
            > non-competitive voters. or more strictly speaking, some significant
            > degree of sincere voting. now there's a case to be made that plenty
            > of competitive voters will be sincere with range voting, and that's
            > not a contradiction:
            > http://rangevoting.org/RVstrat.html
            >
            > -clay
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >





            ___________________________________________________________
            All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
            http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
          • brokenladdercalendar
            i think it s important to remember that a sincere vote can be a _reasonably_ strong vote, which is good for a voter who doesn t want to take the time to
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              i think it's important to remember that a sincere vote can be a
              _reasonably_ strong vote, which is good for a voter who doesn't want
              to take the time to calculate the perhaps 5% better ideal strategic
              vote. so this voter is strategic in a sense. he's not naive, and he
              wants a strong vote. but he's sincere for practical reasons.

              http://rangevoting.org/RVstrat6.html

              --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho <juho4880@...> wrote:
              >
              > I covered the mixture of competitive an non-competitive voters in
              > another paragraph ("Intermediate Approval orientation"). I believe
              > Range will differ from Approval so that there will be some sincere
              > Range style voters. The number of those may depend on the environment
              > where the election is held.
              >
              > The concept of a competitive voter that casts a sincere Range vote is
              > not quite clear. The voter might not be aware of the strategic
              > opportunities. Or maybe the voters becomes non-competitive and
              > therefore does not vote strategically. Or maybe that include a claim
              > that often a sincere vote would be strategically optimal.
              >
              > Juho
              >
              >
              > On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:56 , brokenladdercalendar wrote:
              >
              > > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho <juho4880@> wrote:
              > >> Sincere Range assumes non-competitive voters and therefore strategies
              > >> have no impact on the the third party candidates.
              > >
              > > well, no. warren, at least, assumes a mixture of competative and
              > > non-competitive voters. or more strictly speaking, some significant
              > > degree of sincere voting. now there's a case to be made that plenty
              > > of competitive voters will be sincere with range voting, and that's
              > > not a contradiction:
              > > http://rangevoting.org/RVstrat.html
              > >
              > > -clay
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ___________________________________________________________
              > All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity
              and ease of use." - PC Magazine
              > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
              >
            • Juho
              Ok, one more reason to cast a sincere vote instead of a strategic one could be laziness. Maybe they should not be called competitive though since they don t
              Message 6 of 9 , Mar 5, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Ok, one more reason to cast a sincere vote instead of a strategic one
                could be laziness. Maybe they should not be called competitive though
                since they don't seem to "bother" to win the election.

                (In Range strategic votes are in many cases also very simple to make,
                e.g. when the two leading candidates are known. And in some cases
                strategic votes are much stronger too (A=100 B=99 changed to A=100
                B=0 => 100 times more powerful vote).)

                Juho


                On Mar 5, 2008, at 9:45 , brokenladdercalendar wrote:

                > i think it's important to remember that a sincere vote can be a
                > _reasonably_ strong vote, which is good for a voter who doesn't want
                > to take the time to calculate the perhaps 5% better ideal strategic
                > vote. so this voter is strategic in a sense. he's not naive, and he
                > wants a strong vote. but he's sincere for practical reasons.
                >
                > http://rangevoting.org/RVstrat6.html
                >
                > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho <juho4880@...> wrote:
                >>
                >> I covered the mixture of competitive an non-competitive voters in
                >> another paragraph ("Intermediate Approval orientation"). I believe
                >> Range will differ from Approval so that there will be some sincere
                >> Range style voters. The number of those may depend on the environment
                >> where the election is held.
                >>
                >> The concept of a competitive voter that casts a sincere Range vote is
                >> not quite clear. The voter might not be aware of the strategic
                >> opportunities. Or maybe the voters becomes non-competitive and
                >> therefore does not vote strategically. Or maybe that include a claim
                >> that often a sincere vote would be strategically optimal.
                >>
                >> Juho
                >>
                >>
                >> On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:56 , brokenladdercalendar wrote:
                >>
                >>> --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho <juho4880@> wrote:
                >>>> Sincere Range assumes non-competitive voters and therefore
                >>>> strategies
                >>>> have no impact on the the third party candidates.
                >>>
                >>> well, no. warren, at least, assumes a mixture of competative and
                >>> non-competitive voters. or more strictly speaking, some significant
                >>> degree of sincere voting. now there's a case to be made that plenty
                >>> of competitive voters will be sincere with range voting, and that's
                >>> not a contradiction:
                >>> http://rangevoting.org/RVstrat.html
                >>>
                >>> -clay
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> ___________________________________________________________
                >> All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity
                > and ease of use." - PC Magazine
                >> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >



                ___________________________________________________________
                Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.