Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 10:10 AM 4/25/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote: > > >> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >>> At 06:41 PM 4/24/2007, Juho wrote: >> >>> If you vote Approval style, you fail to express your true >>>>> appreciation of the candidates, and this can backfire. >>>> Yes, but typically/statistically Approval strategy improves the outcome. >>> No. Check out Warren's simulations. Sincere voting (which means >>> expressing weak preferences as weak votes) produces the best >>> outcomes. Approval style produces acceptable outcomes, relative to >>> some other methods. >> You are making assumptions about what is "best". > > Obviously, there are ways in which such a simulation could vary from > reality. But I haven't seen anything better. One further refinement > would be to assign importance factors for the issues, which would > vary with the voters. It's a task all its own.... and worth doing, > I'd suggest, wish I had time.
I believe this effect would be either negligible, or non existent. but That is just a first guess. The 2 factors I worry most would effect the results would be 1. The Individual Utility Function 2. The Distribution of Candidates and society in issue space. 1. in my opinion is partially a moral choice about what type of society you want to have and 2 is more of something that needs to be calibrated to an existing society (really frigging hard to do). > >> On a side note: I still have not found the definition of the >> Individual Utility Function used in the simulations talked about at >> 'rangevoting.org'. >> I am willing to accept there Society Utility function as the Sum of >> Individual Utilities. Did they use U(v, c) = 1/R? Or did they use >> something else? how does the choice of the Utility function affect >> the simulation results. > > Warren has published his code and has invited others to vary how it > is used, or to substitute their own functions. And I'm quite sure > he'd be happy to put up, on the Range site, anything reasonable. He > really is looking for optimum simulations, not merely simulations > that show Range as being better! I never tried to question his Intent. Just stating that I don't understand all of what he is doing . do you have a link where I could find his code? Thanks > > Swerdfeger left a huge amount of quoted text at the end with no > comment, which is offensive. I've done it myself, but only as an > error, somehow I had managed to push it off-screen, with blank lines, > and then forgot to check for it. But there weren't blanks.... still, > perhaps it was simply inadvertent.... sorry. no offence intended. > > ---- > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
