Dear Forest, I'm not sure what you mean by the red marble thing or how it clarifies the meaning of the priors in zero-info strategy.
Over the weekend, I did some calculations with different probabilistic models whose sometimes confusing results I will post in a few hours... Yours, Jobst Simmons, Forest wrote: > What I wrote below doesn't make sense because I got two different > ideas mixed together. > > I wrote (emphasis added to highlight the mistake): > > > Suppose for example, that at each stage a marble is drawn (with > replacement) at random from a bag containing one red and 999 green > marbles, and that the first time the red marble is drawn, the winner > is to be chosen by a lottery based on the current set of > probabilities. Suppose further that at each stage the only thing > reported back to the voters is who won the previous stage. If two > candidates tie at some stage, then the tie is broken by coin toss > before reporting the winner, so the voters don't know about the tie. > > Under these circumstances and from the point of view of the voters > how would the probabilities evolve from one stage to the next? > > For a more coherent idea, replace the underlined phrase with "by > approval according to the current approval cutoffs." > > Of course, these cutoffs would be based on the voter estimates of the > current probabilities. > > The other idea involved keeping the voters informed of an evolving > default lottery that would be employed if their repeated pollings did > not meet some condition by the stage the red marble was drawn. > > Forest > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for > list info ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
