> Well that would totally convince me to support Range Voting, if the voters were computer simulations rather than actual people.
The computer simulations model real human behavior. 720 parameterized models were used, in which voters ranged from 100% strategic to 100% honest, and from 100% ignorant to 100% informed. Somewhere within that Range must be the same percentage of real people who vote strategically vs. honestly. Somewhere within that Range must be a level of ignorance that is approximately equal to the real amount of ignorance in society. Range Voting bested the other methods in ALL of the models.
Let's take a sample scenario. 3 voters, with the following utility values for candidates A, B, and C.
A, B, C V1 -4, 1, 2 V2 -3, 3, 4 V3 -2, 5, -6 AVE: -3, 3, 0
Now in a real-life scenario, we KNOW what these voters would choose using plurality voting. V1 and V2 would choose candidate C, and V3 would choose candidate B. Candidate C would win. This would produce a utility score of 0, which when rescaled to a random-winner=0, ideal-winner=1 scale, would produce 0 / (3-0) = 0%. That's the social utility from this one simulation. Now do MILLIONS of them, and you start getting meaningful numbers. Calculating the values under honesty is a piece of cake. It's devising realistic strategies that gets complicated. That's why lots of strategies have been tried, in the effort to use strategies that model what humans would really do. In a plurality election, the best strategy is to vote for the person you like more among the two perceived front-runners. You can model that effect in digital elections pretty easily. In general, the same strategy applies to IRV as well, which is why IRV degrades to being as bad as plurality the more strategic voters get.
Now, if you aren't happy with the strategies we've employed, and think that the ENORMOUS disparity between Range Voting and IRV can be overcome by simply correcting some of our methodological errors, then please be my guest and cite our errors, and even get the credit you deserve for improving our simulation. But until you find methodological flaws, your objection amounts to nothing but incredulity. "I don't believe your simulations could model reality very well, therefore your results are wrong." Well PROVE it. Engage in science, not superstition.
And read this: http://rangevoting.org/WhyNoHumans.html
> Figuring out how to express my opinions through voting is hard enough without adding additional unnecessary complexity. Especially since (correct me if I'm wrong here Kev) we use paper ballots. It will be impossible to tally by hand if we use Range Voting.
Range Voting is orders of magnitude easier to count, since you just sum up the votes in a single round, where precinct totals can be sent up. It is also consistent, meaning that if two precincts both elect A the winner, A will still be the winner when you merge their ballots. No the case with IRV. With IRV, A can win in two states, yet when you sum the ballots together, A can lose. Sounds nuts, huh? Yeah, IRV _is_ nuts.
And with Range Voting, you can use ordinary dumb plurality voting machines, instead of having to get special multi-round IRV machines, or (ugh) do IRV's multiple rounds by HAND.
See: http://rangevoting.org/Complexity.html
Get this nonsense that Range Voting is complicated out of your head. It's way simpler than IRV.
>My second point is that if it actually works then we'll shortly have evidence of it working for other groups. Then we can decide based upon real world evidence rather than theoretical simulations.
The theoretical simulations prove it VASTLY better than any real world simulations, since you can't read people's minds, but you CAN read the minds of digital voters. There will NEVER be a real world test of voting systems that can compare to the quality of computer simulations, at least for calculating social utility efficiency. As for judging the easy of implementing them, and having real world voters use them, that does require real world tests. Millions of people score things online all the time. That's a great science experiment that proves our point. Not to mention my exit polling in Texas. http://RangeVoting.org/Beaumont.html
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-23 04:47 am (UTC)The computer simulations model real human behavior. 720 parameterized models were used, in which voters ranged from 100% strategic to 100% honest, and from 100% ignorant to 100% informed. Somewhere within that Range must be the same percentage of real people who vote strategically vs. honestly. Somewhere within that Range must be a level of ignorance that is approximately equal to the real amount of ignorance in society. Range Voting bested the other methods in ALL of the models.
Let's take a sample scenario. 3 voters, with the following utility values for candidates A, B, and C.
A, B, C
V1 -4, 1, 2
V2 -3, 3, 4
V3 -2, 5, -6
AVE: -3, 3, 0
Now in a real-life scenario, we KNOW what these voters would choose using plurality voting. V1 and V2 would choose candidate C, and V3 would choose candidate B. Candidate C would win. This would produce a utility score of 0, which when rescaled to a random-winner=0, ideal-winner=1 scale, would produce 0 / (3-0) = 0%. That's the social utility from this one simulation. Now do MILLIONS of them, and you start getting meaningful numbers. Calculating the values under honesty is a piece of cake. It's devising realistic strategies that gets complicated. That's why lots of strategies have been tried, in the effort to use strategies that model what humans would really do. In a plurality election, the best strategy is to vote for the person you like more among the two perceived front-runners. You can model that effect in digital elections pretty easily. In general, the same strategy applies to IRV as well, which is why IRV degrades to being as bad as plurality the more strategic voters get.
Now, if you aren't happy with the strategies we've employed, and think that the ENORMOUS disparity between Range Voting and IRV can be overcome by simply correcting some of our methodological errors, then please be my guest and cite our errors, and even get the credit you deserve for improving our simulation. But until you find methodological flaws, your objection amounts to nothing but incredulity. "I don't believe your simulations could model reality very well, therefore your results are wrong." Well PROVE it. Engage in science, not superstition.
And read this: http://rangevoting.org/WhyNoHumans.html
> Figuring out how to express my opinions through voting is hard enough without adding additional unnecessary complexity. Especially since (correct me if I'm wrong here Kev) we use paper ballots. It will be impossible to tally by hand if we use Range Voting.
Range Voting is orders of magnitude easier to count, since you just sum up the votes in a single round, where precinct totals can be sent up. It is also consistent, meaning that if two precincts both elect A the winner, A will still be the winner when you merge their ballots. No the case with IRV. With IRV, A can win in two states, yet when you sum the ballots together, A can lose. Sounds nuts, huh? Yeah, IRV _is_ nuts.
And with Range Voting, you can use ordinary dumb plurality voting machines, instead of having to get special multi-round IRV machines, or (ugh) do IRV's multiple rounds by HAND.
See: http://rangevoting.org/Complexity.html
Get this nonsense that Range Voting is complicated out of your head. It's way simpler than IRV.
>My second point is that if it actually works then we'll shortly have evidence of it working for other groups. Then we can decide based upon real world evidence rather than theoretical simulations.
The theoretical simulations prove it VASTLY better than any real world simulations, since you can't read people's minds, but you CAN read the minds of digital voters. There will NEVER be a real world test of voting systems that can compare to the quality of computer simulations, at least for calculating social utility efficiency. As for judging the easy of implementing them, and having real world voters use them, that does require real world tests. Millions of people score things online all the time. That's a great science experiment that proves our point. Not to mention my exit polling in Texas. http://RangeVoting.org/Beaumont.html