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

Re: Tragic scenario?

Expand Messages
  • Joe
    ... Point taken. However, the problem with the analogy is that in the case of donation, a little bit of money makes a little bit of difference without counting
    Message 1 of 111 , Mar 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
      <thebrokenladder@...> wrote on March 5, 2008:
      >
      > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <josephmarty@> wrote:
      > > Sure, it's objectively fair to give everyone the opportunity to be
      > > honest or dishonest. But is it fair to the honest people when
      > > everyone else takes advantage of their opportunity to be dishonest?
      >
      > is it fair for selfish people to keep their money while altruistic
      > people give it to deserving charities, because those conniving
      > non-givers figured out how to be more wealthy/powerful by not giving
      > away their money?
      >

      Point taken.

      However, the problem with the analogy is that in the case of donation,
      a little bit of money makes a little bit of difference without
      counting on other people to do the same. Voting in a competitive
      election is more analogous to ... I can't think of anything it's
      analogous to I guess. But the key feature is that you gain nothing by
      giving candidate Z a 30 rather than a 0 - or giving your candidate an
      80 rather than a 99. There is so little benefit to voting honestly
      that I find it irrational.

      > > And can we really blame the dishonest people for acting rationally on
      > > their own behalf?
      >
      > well, no. of course, it's not rational really. since the only
      > rational point in voting is to express yourself, it is pretty dumb to
      > lie on your ballot. but if you really prefer that, more power to you.

      The rationality of voting strategically is that you are more likely to
      get what you believe to be best by voting strategically - even if it
      is not what's best for society overall. Acting rationally is acting
      according to reason upon what you believe to be true to cause an
      effect that you believe to be best - so if I believe that candidate C
      is the best candidate, it is rational for me to vote in the way that
      is most likely to elect candidate C - which is to vote strategically.

      Obviously this changes somewhat with second-favorite "acceptable"
      candidates, whom you might give an intermediate score (depending on
      how much you like them and how likely you perceive it to be that they
      will lose to one of your "opponents") but it's still most rational to
      give all your "opponents" a zero, and your favorite a perfect score.

      >
      > the fact is, you will almost never see a major election where any
      > individual sincere voter could have gotten a better result by voting
      > strategically. and so your argument goes for naught.
      >

      Well, you will almost never see an election either where any
      individual deciding to vote or to stay home would have made a
      difference - it's hardly ever that close - but if a lot of people do
      it, it makes a big difference. The point is that if I expect that all
      my opponents will vote strategically, I will vote strategically, and
      encourage all my allies to vote strategically to counteract, and beat
      my opponent. And that will almost always be the case in a political
      (= competitive) election.
    • Dave Ketchum
      ... I SAID Rank only favorites - which excludes burying. Anyway, which side are you backing today? Quoting from what preceded the above (which involves
      Message 111 of 111 , Mar 28, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:50:20 -0000 brokenladdercalendar wrote:
        > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ketchum <davek@...> wrote:
        >
        >>Assuming candidates about equally desirable:
        >> 32 A
        >> 33 B
        >> 35 C
        >>Rank only favorites, or rate favorites at maximum allowed and others
        > at 0.
        >
        >>I see no majorities, but C winning in Range or Condorcet.
        >
        >
        > What if most of the C supporters bury B (the closest rival), and most
        > of the B supporters bury C. A wins. Doh!
        >
        I SAID "Rank only favorites" - which excludes burying.

        Anyway, which side are you backing today? Quoting from what preceded the
        above (which involves there being no majority to win and Condorcet not
        having weak votes):

        > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:16:37 -0000 brokenladdercalendar wrote:
        >> --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho Laatu <juho4880@...> wrote:
        >>>--- brokenladdercalendar <thebrokenladder@...>
        >>>wrote:
        >
        >>>>--- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho Laatu
        >>>><juho4880@> wrote:
        >
        >>>>>Range allows the voters to cast weak votes and
        >>>>thereby
        >>>>>makes it possible that the majority will not win.
        >>>>
        >>>>so does condorcet
        >>>
        >>>Not really.
        >>
        >> yes, really.
        --
        davek@... people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
        Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
        Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
        If you want peace, work for justice.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.