Author |
Topic: Brexit (Read 1945 times) |
|
rloginunix
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 1029
|
 |
Re: Brexit
« Reply #25 on: Nov 25th, 2016, 6:01am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I see. On the practical side:
1) The algorithm should not be applicable to hard science problems. I can just see it - "the number of primes is finite" - lets vote.
2) It should abstract away the type of participants and goal. Ordinary people electing an official or pirates deciding where to bury the treasure.
3) It should be scalable - from one person voting on one decision to many on many.
4) It should be easy to verify and difficult to manipulate/counterfeit.
5) Every vote should have some effect (as an input bit in a checksum calculation).
6) Every vote has the same weight, no seniorities, etc.
7) The result should be represented as a sorted array/list with the interpretation "left to the user".
My idea was similar to towr's but expressed a bit differently - may be the voters should be able to split their 1.0 vote, as a real number, into arbitrary fractions across the choices with such a vote being valid iff all of its portions add up to 1.0 or less. Say, I will give 0.25 to choice 1, 0.55 to choice 2 and 0.1 to choice 3.
(personally I think that voting is archaic and cavemanish. Historically, majority's opinions were off so many times ... Wonder if any voting situation can be converted into a hard science problem)
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender: 
Posts: 2874
|
|
Re: Brexit
« Reply #26 on: Nov 25th, 2016, 4:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
[quote author=Churchill]Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. [/quote]
Personally, while I can see the difficulty in getting it accepted, I'm something of a fan of Approval Voting: rather than picking one person to support, instead, you indicate approval of as many candidates as you like, and the candidate approved of by most people is the winner.
My main reason for liking it is that it asks the right question - while an election can have only one winner, often people would be happy to support either Alice or Bob, but not Carol or Dave, and find themselves having to decide which of Alice or Bob will get most support from others (or prefer Alice, but are prepared to accept the more popular Bob, so feel forced to support Bob in order to keep Dave from winning)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
dudiobugtron
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 735
|
|
Re: Brexit
« Reply #27 on: Nov 25th, 2016, 11:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I approve of the approval voting idea.
-------------------
Like towr's idea, it still runs the risk that:
on Nov 24th, 2016, 10:21am, towr wrote:| You'll get some inoffensive schmuck that everyone can shrug their shoulders at. |
|
However, I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rloginunix
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 1029
|
|
Re: Brexit
« Reply #28 on: Nov 26th, 2016, 9:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
(hm. Talk about intuition. Prior to reading rmsgrey's post I had no idea about the Approval Voting)
So in smudging your vote across multiple candidates, what final rule do you think should apply:
1) simple relative - to win all you have to have is more votes than the next guy/gal
or
2) compound minimum relative (my term) - before 1) can be applied a certain minimum of votes must be reached?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Brexit
« Reply #29 on: Nov 27th, 2016, 3:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
You could do "passing grade" voting. Everyone grades each candidate on a scale of 1-10 and you need at least a 5.5 to pass. Best wins if (s)he passes. If all candidates flunk, they'll have to do another year of campaigning 
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rloginunix
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 1029
|
|
Re: Brexit
« Reply #30 on: Nov 27th, 2016, 11:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yeah, I like that one - instead of being painted into the "lesser of two evils" corner, there's an explicit "worthy candidates only" rule (with a "restart" button).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2874
|
|
Re: Brexit
« Reply #31 on: Nov 27th, 2016, 12:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
You can always throw RON into any sort of transferable voting system - if RON wins, no-one gets elected...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
dudiobugtron
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 735
|
|
Re: Brexit
« Reply #32 on: Nov 27th, 2016, 9:56pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Let's see how approval voting stacks up against rloginunix's criteria (As a measure of the voting method, and also of the list of criteria!):
Quote:| 2) It should abstract away the type of participants and goal. Ordinary people electing an official or pirates deciding where to bury the treasure. |
|
I think it would work pretty well irrespective of the participants and goal. It would work fine for Pirates; in fact it could work quite well! As long as they have a list of options to begin with.
(I have left off criterion 1, since it is incongruous with criterion 2)
Quote:| 3) It should be scalable - from one person voting on one decision to many on many. |
|
Ironically, it actually doesn't work very well at all for one person voting. I think many people encounter this sort of voting on a regular basis as well ("Where do you want to go to dinner?" "I don't mind". "Well, would you rather go to X, Y, or Z?" "I don't want to go to Z". "But what about X or Y?" "I don't mind" etc...)
But with a few voters it would probably work fine. More voters would reduce the risk of a tie.
Quote:| 4) It should be easy to verify and difficult to manipulate/counterfeit. |
|
This is not covered by the approval voting suggestion, so far.
Quote:| 5) Every vote should have some effect (as an input bit in a checksum calculation). |
|
Check.
Quote:| 6) Every vote has the same weight, no seniorities, etc. |
|
This is arguable. If you think (or agree) that not voting for something has the same weight as voting for it, then this constraint is met. However, you might think that approving of fewer things means your vote has less weight.
Quote:| 7) The result should be represented as a sorted array/list with the interpretation "left to the user". |
|
I think the interpretation is pretty straightforward.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2874
|
|
Re: Brexit
« Reply #33 on: Nov 28th, 2016, 4:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 27th, 2016, 9:56pm, dudiobugtron wrote:| This is not covered by the approval voting suggestion, so far. |
|
Naive approval voting (tick the boxes you like) is fairly susceptible to fraud - it's very easy to add more ticks to the ballot of someone who voted the "wrong" way.
You can make it significantly more robust against this sort of tampering by requiring voters to indicate how many ticks they've made in some way, at the cost of a minor increase in spoiled ballots.
Counting approval votes is also not entirely trivial - for traditional one-vote-per-ballot elections, you can simply pile up the votes for each candidate and compare the sizes of the piles to determine the winner; with approval voting, either you have 2^n piles, probably laid out in a Venn Diagram, or you have to resort the ballots between counting each candidate's votes, making verification significantly more difficult.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rloginunix
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 1029
|
|
Re: Brexit
« Reply #34 on: Nov 28th, 2016, 5:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
To clarify #6: vote's weight/power is not a game theoretic function or metric - how voters cooperate, form alliances and otherwise scheme en mass should be none of UVA's concern (imho).
1000 seniority-ranked, #1 - highest to #1000 - lowest, pirates vote to spilt the loot: if "yes" wins - the loot is split (equally) and the process terminates. The tie breaker goes to "yes" voters. If "no" wins - the lowest seniority pirate is thrown overboard and the process repeats. Clearly, to stay alive the lowest seniority pirate (being rational) must secure the "yes" vote/support of the pirate directly above him/her (seniority-wise) while the highest seniority pirates (being greedy) will try to vote "no" unless they themselves come into danger. So the process terminates (the two forces balance each other out) at the exact power of two from below: 488 pirates of the lowest rank, #513 to #1000, perish; the remaining 512 vote: #1 through #256 - "no" (greedy), #257-#512 - "yes" (rational), tie ...
In UVA the above seniority type attached to a vote (or probably more precisely - to a person) is ignored.
Those companies that are willing, in US, sell their fractions to public on a stock market via a mechanism known as "shares". Not all shares are created equal: class A > class B > class C shares where > means "higher voting rights". There are also "preferred", "restricted" shares, etc. The (rather messy) ABC classification may be changed at the company's whim but the point is this - if you have 1 A (higher) class share then you will still always outvote me even if I have 2 B (lower) class shares.
UVA ignores these types of "powers" (or weights) also.
All votes, the "currency of election", are created equal.
Reading through rmsgrey's post I realised that I have left out
4') or 4*) The tallying process should be cheap (financially) with error rate approaching zero.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print