Page 3 of 7 12 3 45 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
Bundyo's Avatar
Bundyo is offline Bundyo
2008-09-05 , 05:19
Posts: 4,708 | Thanked: 4,649 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Bulgaria
#21
Originally Posted by timsamoff View Post
In addition, this conversation is over a month old and has always been open. Read maemo-community for more of my grief about this (i.e., where has everyone been until now?).

-T.
I'm following -community, and I'm not into voting theory or anything. It just seems logical that when you choose a board of 5 people, everyone will be allowed to choose his 5 preferred candidates.
__________________
Technically, there are three determinate states the cat could be in: Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
 
Jaffa's Avatar
Jaffa is offline Jaffa
2008-09-05 , 07:48
Posts: 2,535 | Thanked: 6,681 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#22
It's so logical that no-one thought to raise it in any of the opportunities they had to do so before now. Including yourself?

Complaining about a system when it's in play is the wrong time: instead, if people care so much, they should've got involved earlier. You can't change a system the day the election starts: software's been put in place, the rules have been thought out to be consistent (even if sub-optimal).

Obviously, whoever sits on the council once elected will look at the process, and put alternatives up for a referendum (as per the council rules)
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
fanoush is offline fanoush
2008-09-05 , 08:20
Posts: 2,152 | Thanked: 1,490 times | Joined on Jan 2006 @ Czech Republic
#23
Originally Posted by Jaffa View Post
It's so logical that no-one thought to raise it in any of the opportunities they had to do so before now. Including yourself?
Even if not completely logical it is reality and happens all the time (somehow it reminded me this post I've seen in my inbox recently). People are lazy and do not think in advantage about every little detail. Even if I had time (~= was not lazy) I'm not sure I would spot it in advance. For me voting system was little detail I did not care about until I saw the names and started to think about how to give my vote.

Originally Posted by Jaffa View Post
Complaining about a system when it's in play is the wrong time: instead, if people care so much, they should've got involved earlier.
it is not end of the world. Better late than never. Now is the best time to collect those 'complains of 25 hour hysterics' a.k.a. useful input ;-) and discuss it to make it better next time.
__________________
Newbies click here before posting. Thanks.

If you really need to PM me with troubleshooting question please consider posting it to the forum instead. It is OK to PM me a link to such post then. Thank you.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to fanoush For This Useful Post:
Jaffa's Avatar
Jaffa is offline Jaffa
2008-09-05 , 08:29
Posts: 2,535 | Thanked: 6,681 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#24
Originally Posted by fanoush View Post
People are lazy and do not think in advantage about every little detail. Even if I had time (~= was not lazy) I'm not sure I would spot it in advance. For me voting system was little detail I did not care about until I saw the names and started to think about how to give my vote.
Oh, indeed. Completely human; and I've been guilty of it myself. Did I mention I hate computers and people? ;-)
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 
lardman is offline lardman
2008-09-05 , 08:46
Posts: 2,102 | Thanked: 1,309 times | Joined on Sep 2006
#25
For me voting system was little detail I did not care about until I saw the names and started to think about how to give my vote.
Exactly the same for me.
 
Bundyo's Avatar
Bundyo is offline Bundyo
2008-09-05 , 10:34
Posts: 4,708 | Thanked: 4,649 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Bulgaria
#26
Originally Posted by Jaffa View Post
It's so logical that no-one thought to raise it in any of the opportunities they had to do so before now. Including yourself?

Complaining about a system when it's in play is the wrong time: instead, if people care so much, they should've got involved earlier. You can't change a system the day the election starts: software's been put in place, the rules have been thought out to be consistent (even if sub-optimal).

Obviously, whoever sits on the council once elected will look at the process, and put alternatives up for a referendum (as per the council rules)
Yes, including myself - maybe i misread, but until i received the invitation i wasn't aware of this little detail.
__________________
Technically, there are three determinate states the cat could be in: Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
 
Jaffa's Avatar
Jaffa is offline Jaffa
2008-09-05 , 12:14
Posts: 2,535 | Thanked: 6,681 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#27
Originally Posted by Bundyo View Post
maybe i misread, but until i received the invitation i wasn't aware of this little detail.
The first round was always going to be more bumpy. I can't imagine the council ignoring this feedback (no matter which of the 5 candidates are in it) for the next election in 6 months' time.
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
brokenladder is offline brokenladder
2008-09-05 , 20:25
Posts: 11 | Thanked: 4 times | Joined on Sep 2008
#28
If you are having an at large election (many winners as opposed to just 1) Score Voting (aka Range Voting) is actually still excellent, per massive Bayesian regret calculations.
=> http://rangevoting.org/UniqBest.html

If you would like results which more closely model the diversity of opinion among your community, however, you could use a proportional method like Proportional Score Voting (aka Reweighted Range Voting), or Asset Voting. Both of these systems are far superior to and simpler than methods like STV, MMP, etc.

http://rangevoting.org/RRVj.html
http://rangevoting.org/Asset.html

Asset Voting is really fascinating in how simple it is. It was originally invented by Lewis Carroll, who was an Oxford mathematician.

Please let us at Electopia know if you should decide to adopt one of these more modern voting methods.

clay@electopia.org

Regards,
Clay Shentrup
San Francisco, CA
 
brokenladder is offline brokenladder
2008-09-05 , 20:34
Posts: 11 | Thanked: 4 times | Joined on Sep 2008
#29
Originally Posted by Benson View Post
You see, there's plenty of room for argument here, and claiming that one solution is the best on such virtues as "most democratic" aren't particularly persuasive; a discussion on this would be better served by discussing concrete advantages and disadvantages.
Well, the sum of all advantages and disadvantages is a scaler utility efficiency value, that you can compare. The best voting method is the one with the lowest Bayesian regret.

It's analogous to arguing about race cars. You may talk about the superior horsepower of car X, and I may talk about the superior aerodynamics of car Y, and some other guy may talk about the lightness of car Z. But talking about these advantages and disadvantages doesn't address the issue. What we should instead do, if we are rational economists, is put the cars through a zillion random trials, with random drivers and road conditions (modeling real life frequencies) and see which car gets the best average time.

That's what Bayesian regret does for voting methods.

You could argue that complexity of the voting method is also an issue, but it just so happens that Score Voting (aka Range Voting) is the second simplest alternative voting method, right after Approval Voting (which itself is actually just a limited form of Score Voting, with a 0-1 "score").

*By safe, I mean that since we cannot eliminate tactical voting and strategic nomination, AKA gaming the system (Gibbard-Satterthwaite), we should assume it, and not choose a system like IRV which is 'twitchy' to changes, and hard to game effectively.
I would like to point out that the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem only applies to rank-order method, and does not apply to Score Voting or Approval Voting.
http://rangevoting.org/GibbSat.html

Not to say that Score Voting is immune from tactical voting of course. (Just reacts mildly to it.)

It should be robust so that voters using a reasonably good estimate of candidates' chances will give a nearly 'fair' winner, rather than a grossly distorted one.
An excellent point. It's nice that Score Voting has this "pleasant surprise" theory, that if all voters give a maximum score to every candidate they like better than their expected outcome, the average voter will be happier than the expected outcome on which he based that vote.
http://rangevoting.org/PleasantSurprise.html
 
fpp's Avatar
fpp is offline fpp
2008-09-05 , 21:01
Posts: 2,853 | Thanked: 968 times | Joined on Nov 2005
#30
I, like others, had not "thought in advance" about how the voting would actually work, and made do with the offered option (just like In real Life :-).

However, I'm actually glad it didn't turn out perfect at first try, because of this very interesting discussion it generated, in which I learned a lot... I love this "Bayesian regret" concept :-)
 

The Following User Says Thank You to fpp For This Useful Post:
Reply
Page 3 of 7 12 3 45 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:06.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top