Dear Warren! You wrote: > In particular, since this thread came from a discussion of the DMC > condorcet-approval hybrid > voting method, I point out that I do not believe DMC is > cloneproof[strat2-revote] either!
What, exactly, is the definition of cloneproof[strat2-revote]? > --They understand the system fine. Range voting is very easy to understand, > easier than > DMC in fact. What they do not understand, is utility values! I guess that's because you cannot easily understand what doesn't exist. > But DMC and all other systems also have that same problem - voters have > trouble understanding utility values and hence have trouble choosing either > their most honest, > or most strategic vote. In fact in DMC (or more simply, approval voting) > to choose your most strategic vote, you have to know the utility values > of the candidates. > If you merely know the ordering of those values, that is insufficient > information to choose the most-strategic approval-vote! Nope. As I'm not an expected-utility-maximizer I prefer to vote according to Weinstein's strategy and approve of every candidate above the median of my priors. > So in fact, you are trying to pretend this problem is absent in DMC, but you > are wrong. I don't pretend such a thing. I think also specifying approval is already a non-trivial task for voters because of the vagueness of "approval". But it is still far easier for me to say whether I approve a candidate than to assign a cardinal rating to him. > It is present everywhere. As a first step toward progress you need to admit > the true > state of affairs - which is utilitarian and that cannot be escaped, sorry - > and > then go on from there. So nice that you know the truth. It should help you get out of your utilitarian trap. > --yes we know it. If I define a quantity, or merely show it can be defined, > then > we know a definition exists. I don't question the definition but the existence of cardinal utility. >>And if you know it, you should be able to tell me your Util(Bush) and explain >>it to me, right? > > > --wrong. Just because a quantity exists does not mean I can explain it to > you. So you get to that value in some miraculous way you cannot explain? > For example, I think we both agree that a first counterample to the Riemann > hypothesis exists > (where if the RH is true then the "first counterexample" is "infinity"). > But in spite of this agreement it exists, I think you cannot tell me its > value. (If you can, please do...) So, if you cannot tell the value, how can you require voters to submit their ratings? >>How nicely plain your world is. Ever heard of risk avoiding? Why do you think >>people have insurances? Do you really want to claim everyone aims at >>maximizing expected (since it's never for sure) utility? > > > --We are revisiting an old debate (my side is called the "Bayesians" and it > is generally > agreed in the statistical community that my side long-ago won). I would rather say your side is called the utilitarians and the question has nothing to do with statistics but with descriptive sociology: it is about what people actually do. > Anyhow. The answer to the insurance question is that the only reason > insurance is > a good idea, is that utilities of the same event differ for different people. > > For example. Suppose you are in a car crash and turn into > a paraplegic. That is an event of huge utility (but low probability) to you. > In fact it > might cost you $1 million, which you do not have. > However, from the insurance company's point of view this is an event of small > expected utility. The point is, to a poor person, $1000 has larger > utility than $1000 has to a rich person (or insurance company). > If you are rich and already have many $millions, then you are foolish to > insure > yourself against car-crash-paralysis. Your thinking now is the same as > the insurance company's. > > Hmm. I am not saying this very well. But the point is, the whole reason > insurance exists is that utilities differ among different people, causing > expected utilities to differ. In fact this is the > whole reason for every economic transaction. This is not at all incompatible > with the > Bayesian utilitarian viewpoint. OK, I will have to think about this a bit longer :-) > --I do not know how they do it. I merely know I did a range voting exit poll > of 122 > real-world voters in 2004, and this is what happened. You can read about it > http://math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html #82. I will have a look at this, too. > Obviously by carrying on this debate you are not directly causing harm to > humanity, but > your wrong ideas continually do cause tremendous harm to humanity, You should really stop this or I'll request to put your postings on moderation. Yours, Jobst ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
