[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wei Dai) writes:
>On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:32:16AM -0700, Peter C. McCluskey wrote:
>> What I really want is something which would quantify the probability my
>> vote will affect what interest groups future candidates pander to. I suspect
>> this is higher than the chance of
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:13:23AM -0400, Robert A. Book wrote:
> > I think what you want is the Banzhaf Power Index, developed by Banzhaf
> > (surprise!) in the 1960s. I forwarded your post to a friend of mine
> > who's done some work on this, and discovered he's giving a talk on
> > this very
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:13:23AM -0400, Robert A. Book wrote:
> I think what you want is the Banzhaf Power Index, developed by Banzhaf
> (surprise!) in the 1960s. I forwarded your post to a friend of mine
> who's done some work on this, and discovered he's giving a talk on
> this very topic on F
mary, with a link to a more detailed web page, is below.
--Robert Book
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Forwarded message from Mark A. Livingston -
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:14:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark A. Livingston
To: Robert A. Book
Subject: Re: another use for idea futures (fwd)
Robert,
[ Fee
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:32:16AM -0700, Peter C. McCluskey wrote:
> I think it's harder than this to adequately model p(x), because it acts
> differently in close races because the incentive for the losing side to
> cheat is highest when it's most likely to change the result.
Yes, to be more re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wei Dai) writes:
>To handle the case when it's not good enough to assume that p(x) is flat
>in the range -.02n to .02n, for example when one candidate has a
>clear lead, we can instead assume that p(x) has a normal distribution, and
>find the normal distribution that best fits t
I think I finally solved a problem that's been bugging me since high
school: how do you actually compute the probability that your vote will be
decisive, in other words, the probability that without your vote the
election will be a tie or your side will lose by one vote? (Well, solved
if we ignore
