3 ms·
> i just showed you how. That comes across as weirdly aggressive when you're referring to earlier in the same post. Like I'm dumb for not somehow seeing that
by Dylan16807 5mo ago
> i just showed you how.
That comes across as weirdly aggressive when you're referring to earlier in the same post. Like I'm dumb for not somehow seeing that before I finished my own post.
Also what's the definition of honesty for approval voting? Where am I supposed to draw the line?
The chart is pretty but I'm not trusting that chart without a lot more info.
> IRV is a strategic mess
I didn't say I want instant runoff in particular.
- ClayShentrup 5mo agoit doesn't really matter how you define "honest". what matters is how people actually vote. the only really crucial distinction for "honest" versus "strategic" is that "honest" can't consider viability. in the simulations, we just use "approve everyone you like more than average". optimal strategy is to approve everyone you like more than the expected utility of the winner. https://rangevoting.net/RVstrat6 https://rangevoting.net/RVstrat6 here's lots of detail. you can run the code for yourself. https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html here's a slightly different model from the late harvard stats phd, jameson quinn. https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/ https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/ don't "trust" anything. look at the data. you could also read the book "gaming the vote" by william poundstone.