Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 381 posts

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#351

Post by winstonewert »

eru wrote: post #347
winstonewert wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think other system require "playing the game" in the same way as approval voting. You can game any voting system by voting strategically, but approval voting seems unique in actually expecting people to have to vote strategically.

> I don't think other system require "playing the game" in the same way as approval voting. You must be joking? Almost no one ever votes their true preference in first-past-the-post. People usually vote for the lesser evil of the top two candidates, because any other strategy (like voting for who you'd actually like to win the election) just wastes your vote. In any case, check out eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Sorry, I tend to think of FPTP as being so messed up it doesn't qualify as a voting system. I was comparing approval voting to alternatives like Ranked Pairs/IRV/Borda etc.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#352

Post by winstonewert »

eru wrote: post #350
winstonewert wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't intend to suggest someone wouldn't vote because they are "paralyzed by indecisiveness." My concern is that people will vote sub-optimally due to poor information about other voters preferences and poor understanding of the strategy involved.

That's a valid concern. http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy argues that in approval voting an honest ballot would give you (by some measure) at least 91% of the impact of a perfect tactical ballot. An honest vote in first-past-the-post, say for your awesome friend Bob for President, would give you approximately 0% return compared to the proper strategy of voting for the lesser evil of Clinton.

Actually, that discussion is about an honest score voting ballot, not an honest approval ballot.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#353

Post by winstonewert »

eru wrote: post #349
ClayShentrup wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your best strategy is to approve all candidates you prefer to the expected value of the winner. http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy This works out well, tending to elect Condorcet winners. http://ScoreVoting.net/AppCW.html

Thanks. So the best strategy is even simpler! So you do vote above the cutoff. But the optimal cutoff is really simple to find from the polls.

I don't think that works. Polls tell you the levels of support of the candidates, they don't give you the probability of each candidate winning which is what you need to figure out the expected value of the winner.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#354

Post by eru »

winstonewert wrote: post #352
eru wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a valid concern. http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy argues that in approval voting an honest ballot would give you (by some measure) at least 91% of the impact of a perfect tactical ballot. An honest vote in first-past-the-post, say for your awesome friend Bob for President, would give you approximately 0% return compared to the proper strategy of voting for the lesser evil of Clinton.

Actually, that discussion is about an honest score voting ballot, not an honest approval ballot.

Hmm, the author confusingly mixes topics.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#355

Post by eru »

winstonewert wrote: post #353
eru wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. So the best strategy is even simpler! So you do vote above the cutoff. But the optimal cutoff is really simple to find from the polls.

I don't think that works. Polls tell you the levels of support of the candidates, they don't give you the probability of each candidate winning which is what you need to figure out the expected value of the winner.

I guess it's back to the prediction markets (or fivethirtyeight) then.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#356

Post by eru »

winstonewert wrote: post #351
eru wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think other system require "playing the game" in the same way as approval voting. You must be joking? Almost no one ever votes their true preference in first-past-the-post. People usually vote for the lesser evil of the top two candidates, because any other strategy (like voting for who you'd actually like to win the election) just wastes your vote. In any case, check out eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Sorry, I tend to think of FPTP as being so messed up it doesn't qualify as a voting system. I was comparing approval voting to alternatives like Ranked Pairs/IRV/Borda etc.

Oh, OK. I am arguing for Approval Voting because it's the simplest voting system up from FPTP, and easy to explain.

Borda Count really invites the gaming, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count#Potential_for_tact...

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#357

Post by winstonewert »

eru wrote: post #356
winstonewert wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I tend to think of FPTP as being so messed up it doesn't qualify as a voting system. I was comparing approval voting to alternatives like Ranked Pairs/IRV/Borda etc.

Oh, OK. I am arguing for Approval Voting because it's the simplest voting system up from FPTP, and easy to explain. Borda Count really invites the gaming, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count#Potential_for_tact...

I get where you are coming from on Approval Voting. The simplicity of the system is very attractive.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#358

Post by ClayShentrup »

eru wrote: post #354
winstonewert wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, that discussion is about an honest score voting ballot, not an honest approval ballot.

Hmm, the author confusingly mixes topics.

Approval Voting is Score Voting on a 0-1 scale. I tried to be clear about the distinctions as they apply. If you can cite any specific sentences that you think could be made clearer, please let me know.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#359

Post by ClayShentrup »

eru wrote: post #356
winstonewert wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I tend to think of FPTP as being so messed up it doesn't qualify as a voting system. I was comparing approval voting to alternatives like Ranked Pairs/IRV/Borda etc.

Oh, OK. I am arguing for Approval Voting because it's the simplest voting system up from FPTP, and easy to explain. Borda Count really invites the gaming, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count#Potential_for_tact...

Borda is better than Plurality and IRV regardless of the amount of tactical voters.

http://ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#360

Post by eru »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #358
eru wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, the author confusingly mixes topics.

Approval Voting is Score Voting on a 0-1 scale. I tried to be clear about the distinctions as they apply. If you can cite any specific sentences that you think could be made clearer, please let me know.

I think I confused myself there.

If you want your site to be usable for drive-by-quoting in an Internet discussion, perhaps you want to make two copies of that text, one specifically for Approval Voting and one for score voting in general?

PS Overall nice website, I am reading more.

Post reply on HN