5 ms·

This explains, at the very least, why rampant partisanship is an inevitability in a large Democracy, despite it being worse off for everybody (including politic

This explains, at the very least, why rampant partisanship is an inevitability in a large Democracy, despite it being worse off for everybody (including politicians themselves). Instead of saying "in a large Democracy" it should say "in a large Democracy which uses plurality voting." Some voting systems (for instance Condorcet compatible ones) do not encourage partisanship in the same way as plurality does. In fact other systems actually encourage cooperation and favor candidates that are more in the center. And I think that points to a flaw in the conclusion of the article: attempting to directly change human nature (or culture, as the OP suggests) is a fool's errand. Instead, changing the rules of a system, such that the Pareto optimal result and the Nash Equilibrium align more closely, is a much more realistic approach. And I believe that when you do set up good systems where people are rewarded for cooperating, the culture changes with it. (Regardless I think it is an excellent article and the more people who understand the Game Theory stuff he explains, the better. And I absolutely agree with his sentiment than Musk should be lauded for what he is doing rather than being met with cynicism.)

jessriedel 12y ago
> In fact other systems actually encourage cooperation and favor candidates that are more in the center. Actually, single-round winner-take-all democracy induces a race toward the middle, not polarization. (If everyone is aligned on a 1D spectrum and votes for the candidate closest to their position, then both candidates are incentivized move toward the median position.) What you're really getting at isn't the idea of polarizations versus moderation, it's voting coordination (i.e. political parties) aka collusion. Unfortunately, alternate voting systems don't eliminate collusion, they just push it to a different level (e.g. proportional representative systems still have 51% coalitions at the level of parliament). You might reasonably argue that that's a better level to put that collusion, but it's definitely not eliminated through some simple choice of voting system. If you really want to eliminate collusion and induce consensus making, you can consider "randomized parliaments". They operate in a way very analogous to the mechanism that makes poker showdowns rare. Although he chooses an unfortunate name of "quantum parliment" (since there's nothing quantum about the randomness), Aerts explains the idea well here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503078 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503078
- robbrown451 12y ago
  It's only a race to the middle in the short term. In the long term, you tend to get two parties as a defense against vote splitting.....that's where the polarization comes from. The collusion causes it. That's not to say that collusion always causes polarization, but this particular type does for very direct mathematical reasons. (see Duverger's Law) Proportional representation is not a great solution, in my opinion, since it actually assumes parties rather than making them unneeded. That's not to say there won't be collusion under a different system -- there will and that's ok...but there won't be a particular type of collusion whereby the Nash Equilibrium is two diametrically opposed camps. The main point, though, is that the rules are important. People cooperate better if the rules reward cooperative behavior.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Candidates and parties are not one dimensional. In more dimensions, polarization occurs. http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
- makomk 12y ago
  Arguably, what we've seen happen in practice is both a race toward the middle and polarization - the two parties and their supporters become more and more hostile, aggressive and unwilling to compromise over an increasingly small set of differences between the two.
  - jessriedel 12y ago
    Yes, I think that's right. I was really criticizing the idea that winner-take-all deomocracy is not a system that "favor[s] candidates that are more in the center". "Polarization" was a poor choice of words; I think "extremization" would have been better.
waps 12y ago
Please note that the post gives an extremely bad impression. First of all, pareto efficiency and nash equilibria exist both in capitalism and other economic systems. And the obvious alternative economic system : centrally planned economies, are very much nash equilibria (if they are stable at all). But the second impression he gives is also very wrong. By definition, everyone is a "selfish dickhead" both in Nash equilibria interactions and pareto efficient interactions. This is a basic tenet of economy, that people "in the limit" act in their own self interest, never out of altruism. Why ? Simple : if anyone is systematically altruistic, he/she will be eliminated from the game (meaning end up dirt poor, imprisoned or dead or otherwise prevented from participating in the system). The predictions this makes are extremely accurate, and have been for millenia. Always assume nobody is altruistic, ever, for any reason. The real difference between nash equilibrium transactions and pareto efficient transactions is this : nash equilibrium : A and B, both "selfish dickheads", transact. If A gets a good deal, B got screwed. Pareto efficiency : A and B, both "selfish dickheads", transact. A and B got a good deal. This is why the "always cooperate" strategy in the prisoner's dilemma game is not actually pareto efficient : it is obviously possible for the other guy to screw you. If it were a pareto efficient strategy, it wouldn't be possible to take advantage of this. In capitalism, if there is a pareto-efficient strategy to transact, people following that tactic will quickly increase in numbers, and therefore the whole society will become pareto efficient. This happens BECAUSE everyone is a "selfish dickhead", not because some people are morally superior to others. That fact is why every economist is so impressed with capitalism. Capitalism is a system that can succeed, for everyone, in the presence of selfish dickheads. A centrally planned economy, by contrast, necessarily either destabilizes entirely (not good for anyone, unless you truly believe in anarchism), or turns into a Nash equilibrium over time. Capitalism is a learning algorithm, or a "crowd-sourcing" algorithm with money as "karma" : it makes sure that resource allocations are decided by people who previously made good allocations. That is of course what people really have against capitalism : 1) "abusers"/"power mongers"/... : complain about capitalism because they can't keep abusing the system. If they use their resources to force certain outcomes that wouldn't normally be achieved (e.g. personal power), that can only work for so long. 2) moralists: complain about capitalism because it's amoral, like any learning algorithm. It does not care if any action improves or destroys other people, or which factors determine success, merely if it increases an abstract "value" concept. If they have resources (e.g. because you have an islamist state), it requires a constant large cost to force any non-optimal outcome (e.g. not letting women work). Needless to say this is perceived by the moralists as capitalism fighting allah (when of course it's really reality itself that's at odds with allah), and then they usually just grab the weapons. If there ever was a "true" religion, it's trivial to see capitalism would quickly grow it, not work against it. "Surprisingly" this has not happened yet, one can only wonder why.

jessriedel 12y ago

> In fact other systems actually encourage cooperation and favor candidates that are more in the center. Actually, single-round winner-take-all democracy induces a race toward the middle, not polarization. (If everyone is aligned on a 1D spectrum and votes for the candidate closest to their position, then both candidates are incentivized move toward the median position.) What you're really getting at isn't the idea of polarizations versus moderation, it's voting coordination (i.e. political parties) aka collusion. Unfortunately, alternate voting systems don't eliminate collusion, they just push it to a different level (e.g. proportional representative systems still have 51% coalitions at the level of parliament). You might reasonably argue that that's a better level to put that collusion, but it's definitely not eliminated through some simple choice of voting system. If you really want to eliminate collusion and induce consensus making, you can consider "randomized parliaments". They operate in a way very analogous to the mechanism that makes poker showdowns rare. Although he chooses an unfortunate name of "quantum parliment" (since there's nothing quantum about the randomness), Aerts explains the idea well here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503078 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503078

robbrown451 12y ago
It's only a race to the middle in the short term. In the long term, you tend to get two parties as a defense against vote splitting.....that's where the polarization comes from. The collusion causes it. That's not to say that collusion always causes polarization, but this particular type does for very direct mathematical reasons. (see Duverger's Law) Proportional representation is not a great solution, in my opinion, since it actually assumes parties rather than making them unneeded. That's not to say there won't be collusion under a different system -- there will and that's ok...but there won't be a particular type of collusion whereby the Nash Equilibrium is two diametrically opposed camps. The main point, though, is that the rules are important. People cooperate better if the rules reward cooperative behavior.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nitrogen 12y ago
Candidates and parties are not one dimensional. In more dimensions, polarization occurs. http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
makomk 12y ago
Arguably, what we've seen happen in practice is both a race toward the middle and polarization - the two parties and their supporters become more and more hostile, aggressive and unwilling to compromise over an increasingly small set of differences between the two.
- jessriedel 12y ago
  Yes, I think that's right. I was really criticizing the idea that winner-take-all deomocracy is not a system that "favor[s] candidates that are more in the center". "Polarization" was a poor choice of words; I think "extremization" would have been better.

waps 12y ago

Please note that the post gives an extremely bad impression. First of all, pareto efficiency and nash equilibria exist both in capitalism and other economic systems. And the obvious alternative economic system : centrally planned economies, are very much nash equilibria (if they are stable at all). But the second impression he gives is also very wrong. By definition, everyone is a "selfish dickhead" both in Nash equilibria interactions and pareto efficient interactions. This is a basic tenet of economy, that people "in the limit" act in their own self interest, never out of altruism. Why ? Simple : if anyone is systematically altruistic, he/she will be eliminated from the game (meaning end up dirt poor, imprisoned or dead or otherwise prevented from participating in the system). The predictions this makes are extremely accurate, and have been for millenia. Always assume nobody is altruistic, ever, for any reason. The real difference between nash equilibrium transactions and pareto efficient transactions is this : nash equilibrium : A and B, both "selfish dickheads", transact. If A gets a good deal, B got screwed. Pareto efficiency : A and B, both "selfish dickheads", transact. A and B got a good deal. This is why the "always cooperate" strategy in the prisoner's dilemma game is not actually pareto efficient : it is obviously possible for the other guy to screw you. If it were a pareto efficient strategy, it wouldn't be possible to take advantage of this. In capitalism, if there is a pareto-efficient strategy to transact, people following that tactic will quickly increase in numbers, and therefore the whole society will become pareto efficient. This happens BECAUSE everyone is a "selfish dickhead", not because some people are morally superior to others. That fact is why every economist is so impressed with capitalism. Capitalism is a system that can succeed, for everyone, in the presence of selfish dickheads. A centrally planned economy, by contrast, necessarily either destabilizes entirely (not good for anyone, unless you truly believe in anarchism), or turns into a Nash equilibrium over time. Capitalism is a learning algorithm, or a "crowd-sourcing" algorithm with money as "karma" : it makes sure that resource allocations are decided by people who previously made good allocations. That is of course what people really have against capitalism : 1) "abusers"/"power mongers"/... : complain about capitalism because they can't keep abusing the system. If they use their resources to force certain outcomes that wouldn't normally be achieved (e.g. personal power), that can only work for so long. 2) moralists: complain about capitalism because it's amoral, like any learning algorithm. It does not care if any action improves or destroys other people, or which factors determine success, merely if it increases an abstract "value" concept. If they have resources (e.g. because you have an islamist state), it requires a constant large cost to force any non-optimal outcome (e.g. not letting women work). Needless to say this is perceived by the moralists as capitalism fighting allah (when of course it's really reality itself that's at odds with allah), and then they usually just grab the weapons. If there ever was a "true" religion, it's trivial to see capitalism would quickly grow it, not work against it. "Surprisingly" this has not happened yet, one can only wonder why.