Hunting The Muse

Writing helps me find my ideas. It's your choice to be subjected to it all.

Past Ideas:

StorySprawl
StorySprawl MP3
My Music
Detective Pogue
Online-Music History
Instablog

Other Weblogs:

My:

Business Site
Resumes
WishList

Archives
<< current

Curt Is:

Musician, Programmer, Polyglot, Rennaissance Man, Bon Vivante

(credits)

Hunting The Muse

Saturday, November 30, 2002
Ellen Feiss gives an interview that is surprisingly entertaining.
(5:15 PM)
0 comments
~^~^~
Thursday, November 28, 2002
Gore - Well, I read this, and felt a little bit more curious about Gore for 2004... one of the things he says is... "It’s the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism[...]" and that made me think... and anything that makes me think in a day scores points for me.
(9:58 AM)
0 comments
~^~^~

Wow, Tommy! You're turning into a regular comment hound. Ya might just be my number one fan, as far as rabid comment hound fanboys go. Happy Thanksgiving!
(3:36 AM)
0 comments
~^~^~
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
Welp, back from Florida. I suppose it wasn't quite as recharging as last year, although I didn't exactly have as much to recharge from, so overall that's a good thing. In general I think I actually had a better time with my parents this year - we had a good time on the final full day, went to a nature preserve and took a lot of pictures of animals with my digital camera, and talked a lot of photography. My dad worked at Kodak for many many years and I had forgotten we had such a fun subject to talk about. He was really impressed with my camera (canon s200 powershot elph).

I spent a lot of time with Mir also - my sister's family was there for the first three days and Mir is the wonderniece. I took an absolute ton of pictures and little movies. She's 3 1/2 and hilarious.

At night I sat around with my iBook and did whatever I could without internet access, which it turned out was quite a lot. I obviously did a whole lot of iPhoto categorizations. But I also played with iTunes a lot, too. I got some new cds and for the first time I have more than 5 GB of music in iTunes, with a 5GB iPod. So I was over. So, while before I had iTunes just syncing everything, I figured out a really cool system to have only the best subset of music in my iPod.

Basically what happens is that when I have new music that hasn't been rated or heard yet, it goes to my iPod. The iPod keeps track of play count. Once it has been played a couple of times, then it goes back OFF my iPod, into a "rate me!" playlist in iTunes, since that's the only place I can rate music. Finally, any music that has been rated three stars or above is stored back on my iPod. So, if I listen to new music that I really like, of course I will want to rate it highly so it will show back up on my iPod.

So basically what that means is that I have a lot of music that is not on my iPod now - one-star, two-star, and music that I have listened to multiple times but haven't rated yet. By the end of this, all my music should be rated. I accomplished it by making a few smart playlists, telling the iPod to only update those playlists, and also taking advantage of the whole checkbox feature in case I had a highly-rated song that I didn't need on the iPod (like the star wars radio drama, for instance - it's great, it takes a lot of space, I already heard it).

The other thing I did was go through a bunch of Project Builder tutorials. I'm learning Cocoa programming. I'm doing it in an unconventional way - I'm learning it using Java first, since that is what I know, and then trying to learn some Objective C on the side since that's more mature for Cocoa. It's weird though, because I'll really be learning Obj-C from scratch - most tutorials assume you have proficiency of C/C++ and I'm only moderately familiar with them. So what I really need is an Obj-C book that either teaches it from scratch, or (better yet) teaches it to people that already know Java.

Right now I'm waiting for Carbon Copy Cloner to back up my iBook so I can take it into the shop - it's got at least a bad battery, but might also have a bad power management system. Booo!
(11:03 AM)
1 comment

~^~^~
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Off to Florida for a few days. Not sure if I'll be able to blog from there!

Packing took forever!
(3:05 AM)
1 comment

~^~^~
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Just because there's an absence of symptoms doesn't mean that there has necessarily been healing. That was something Tamara said today that I like.
(4:59 PM)
0 comments
~^~^~

I just need to go on record and say that I'm one of the Segway supporters. I know a lot of people think it's crazy and overhyped. It was overspeculated, but I think it's a big deal.

The easy-to-use transportation device already exists. Functionally and from the viewpoint of someone not riding one, it's about comparable to one of those little motorized razor scooters, except quieter. So that's not a big deal.

For the users it takes less skill. And it doesn't pollute. And it's less dangerous, both for people riding it, and for people that it might hit.

But the part that has me excited is its future plans. First, the rumors that the consumer version will be able to be folded up and worn as a backpack. Second, that a new stirling engine will be incorporated. A stirling engine that will generate electricity from its fuel, that can run on all sorts of different fuels (like trash). And can distill/purify water. So you can take your Segway off grid, and then let it help you get your own drinking water and also be your generator while it recharges itself.

In about 2004 or 2005 I bet I will be owning one.
(1:39 PM)
0 comments

~^~^~

I watched the most recent Angel episode. Visually and plot-wise, it was one of the best ever. Dialogue and script-wise, it was one of the worst. Like, Cordelia and Connor had sex. That's a big moment. But it was prefaced earlier in the episode with Connor saying something complimentary and also about how he was confused. Cordelia said thanks and said, "It's because you're eighteen. When you turn 21, a world of possibilities opens up." It was totally clumsy. It was to emphasize that they're really not all that far apart, when otherwise we'd be thinking, uh, this kid was born last season, and when he came back from hell all grown up, wasn't he fourteen? And I know that Cordy's 21, but isn't she played by a 30-year-old? I mean, come on.

Buffy has been great lately, with a new script writer, Drew something. Goddard, maybe. He has a knack for big moments and melodrama. Although sometimes, it's a bit heavy on the melodrama. I'd say he's at about 85% on the "earning your excesses" scale.

I saw Harry Potter II tonight. Man, is that ever Chinese food. In short, Kenneth Branagh was really funny in the first half. Lucius Malfoy was cool. Dobby was just as confusing as he is in the book. The rest of them were pretty boring. Although Ginny Weasley, man, she is going to be one gorgeous woman, and she seems to have a lot of presence as an actress as well. Really looking forward to seeing more of her in future movies. And as for the big twist that I won't spoil, I couldn't help but feel that if the movie had been shot so that that other perspective had been followed throughout, it would have been a hell of a lot less boring of a movie. Show don't tell, people!!!
(12:57 AM)
0 comments

~^~^~
Sunday, November 17, 2002
Cal IRV FAQ - Here is a page that shows a voting scenario about how IRV is superior to Condorcet (pairwise) voting. They show a voting scenario that seems mostly reasonable, based in history, of Reagan facing Carter facing Anderson. In their scenario, IRV means Regan wins, while in Condorcet, Anderson wins.

It's distracting because their stats aren't exactly what happened in that election. But, because of history and the names, it seems right that Reagan should win, and just weird that Anderson should win. Especially since we have this history of feeling dominated by the two major parties, and with Anderson being an independent.

So I will redraw the scenario here. Same stats, same candidate make-up. But without the names:

Votes 1st 2nd 3rd

48

47

4

1

That's better. IRV: Red wins. Condorcet: Yellow wins.

This one is interesting because at first glance it certainly does seem as if either red or blue should win. If you look at first-place votes, red and blue are way ahead of yellow. The most damaging argument against Yellow is that 95% of the voters don't even want Yellow as their first choice.

But if we look at the rankings, it's not that simple. Third place here doesn't just mean a good show like in a horse race, it means last. The people that voted red first really don't want blue to win, and vice versa. In fact, we can tell that if either red or blue is voted in, around half of the voters will be very unhappy.

So what is the goal of a vote? Is it to make a horse race with a dramatic finish where you can either win big or be crushed? Or is it to capture the collective consensus of the entire voting population?

If it's consensus, then I believe Yellow is the winner. 100% of the voters ranked Yellow either first or second. No one hates Yellow. 52% of the voters hate Blue. 48% hate Red. Neither would well represent the entire population. And Yellow would. No one voted only for Red (or Blue) with no other choices - all are indicating they'd accept Yellow as a second choice. Yellow reflects the consensus choice of the voters.

Voting systems are eventually dependent upon subjective preferences of the people advocating them. If the goal is to focus mostly on plurality-style counting, only looking at preferences if the outcome is in doubt, and if the goal is to put as much weight as possible on the 1st-choice candidates and risking having your preferences ignored if support the wrong candidate, then IRV is the right voting system. But if the goal is to have all your preferences paid attention to in the counting, and if the goal is to find the consensus choice of the entire group, Condorcet (pairwise) would be the better choice.
(11:26 PM)
0 comments

~^~^~

I'm in a big cleanup phase again, this time to prepare for a trip I'm taking to Florida. I did this a year ago and it was a good recharge. This time there's the added advantage that I get to see my sister, brother-in-law, and niece. I think the quarters might be sort of cramped, but it shouldn't be too bad.

The cleanup is aggravating. In Peanuts, Pig-Pen has a strip where he's scrubbing and scrubbing and scrubbing in the bathroom, and still has his dust could, then says aloud, "I think I may have passed the point of no return." That's how I feel about my stacks of papers right now. There are just too many papers that don't have categories. What do I do, give them their very own folder in my file cabinet? No, I leave them out on the desk, with the sixty-five other similarly unique documents. In a pile.

I clearly don't know how to file. I like hierarchies, especially multi-parent hierarchies. You can't do that in a file cabinet. Well, maybe you can, but I sure don't know how.

I've also spent time cleaning up my computer. I finally ported Quicken, although I'm now waiting for my new pin numbers (still can't use the damn thing). I'm going to make an appointment with an accountant, and I'm also going to transfer all of my bank accounts and investment accounts to one place (maybe Fidelity) as soon as I start my new company name. That'll be nice and clean.

I'm also gearing up for a set of new personal technical goals - my first priority seems to be my new interest in voting technologies (made blindingly obvious in previous blog entries). One site to set up votes for various polls, and perhaps another site to mimc a direct representation setup with a mock Senate. I'm corresponding with a couple of people regarding these subjects right now.

My second priority is StorySprawl, again. I want to get that moved over to save myself $25/month.

And third priority is to start learning some actual desktop programming. I've done a lot with server-side programming, but now I kind of feel like I want to learn Cocoa (OSX programming). I'll start with Java, but will move on to ActionScript and Objective-C soon enough.

That's enough technically though - keenworks should help me get some new freelance contracts, which helps with money, which aligns with my other goals. The house and the piano, namely. I'm getting into music again - I actually had a song idea the other night and wrote half a song. I will be trying to finish it soon.

That's all, that's that. Off to bed, snooze.
(3:43 AM)
0 comments

~^~^~
Friday, November 15, 2002
Radio Waves Build Settlements In Space Wow. I mean, Wow. I never would have thought of that.
(7:14 PM)
0 comments
~^~^~
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
It looks like my new professional website and domain name is in the process of being developed. Yay me! Can't wait to unveil it.
(1:29 AM)
0 comments
~^~^~
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
Center for Voting and Democracy - Evidently, so much incumbent protection money was spent in the redistricting process a couple of years ago that it's possible to project the results of the House Of Representatives vote far in advance. This year, they were 100% accurate. Well, that's what they claim - I don't see how they can say that considering that my buddy's dad still doesn't know if he won (Bob Beauprez in Denver, CO).
(1:53 AM)
0 comments
~^~^~

A supplementary realization on the "Indepences of Irrelevant Alternatives Criteria" (IIAC) example below.

Condorcet only "flunks" this criteria IF the vote ends up in a cycle. Meaning, if:

The majority prefers A over B
The majority prefers B over C
The majority prefers C over A

The other voting methods can flunk IIAC, however, even if there isn't a cycle.

In the example below, I make the argument that it's fair for that scenario.

However, the Gore/Bush/Nader election did not have a cycle. The majority in Florida probably preferred Gore over Bush, and also Gore over Nader.

Plurality voting flunked there. Condorcet would not have.

Soon, I will be finished looking into and understanding all the different voting methods, and will begin implementing them into a voting application I am writing.

I am rapidly understanding that finding the correct vote-counting procedure will only take you so far. Because using a vote-counting system to find the perfect social choice depends on one thing - each participant of that vote feeling they have a perfect candidate to vote on. Or at least, each voter being equally satisfied that their candidate reflects their choice. And that's far from the truth.

And so with that, here is my summary of the different voting systems I have researched:

Plurality: Most first-place votes wins.
Approval: Vote for as many candidates as you want. Candidate with most votes wins. This is widely recognized as a solid counting system. I personally feel it can give too much false power to a compromise candidate, though.
IRV: If no first-ranked candidate gets a majority (>50%), delete worst first-rank, bump up second rank for those ballots, refigure. Repeat as necessary. There are many, many flaws for IRV.
Borda: For a five-candidate election, rank all five. 1st place gets 5 points, 2nd place gets 4 points, etc. Most points win. Technically solid, but high chance of voters voting insincerely for strategic reasons.
Condorcet: Head-to-head cage matches. Winner beats all other candidates. If there's a cycle, it gets complicated.
Ranked Pairs: Similar to Condorcet. I don't understand it yet.

(1:14 AM)
0 comments
~^~^~
Sunday, November 10, 2002
By the way, one of the most "fair" voting methods out there?

Everyone fills out a ballot with their first choice. Put it in a big vat. Choose a ballot randomly. That candidate wins. If 70% of the people put A first, then A has a 70% chance of being picked.

Scary, huh?

(5:08 PM)
0 comments

~^~^~

Here's the scenario that is most aggravating about all voting theory:

Say you have a vote with candidate A and candidate C, and it would end up:

40 A
60 C

C wins. But now say that B enters the race. And for various reasons, the new preference makeup is like this:

40 A B C
35 B C A
25 C A B

The thinking goes, to be REALLY fair, if C would have normally beat A, and you're introducing a candidate that wouldn't win, shouldn't C still beat A?

It seems obvious, doesn't it? This is one of the main requirements that Kenneth Arrow described for "fair voting", which he then proved could never happen.

And it looks like in each of our voting systems, it flunks in one way or another:

Approval: (Irrelevant in this case)
Plurality: A now wins with 40% of the vote
IRV: C is eliminated first, A then wins
Borda: A now wins with 40% of the awarded points
Condorcet: This one's interesting - by listing the head-to-head matchups in order, we get:
B/C: 75-25
A/B: 65-35
C/A: 60-40
And that's a cycle. Condorcet has various methods of breaking these tie votes, some by strength of victory (B/C would be 75), others by margin of victory (B/C would be 50). But in all cases, their tie-breaking scenario would eliminate C/A as the weakest win here, which would eliminate C from the tallies, which would once again lead to A winning.

So in all cases, C would have first won, B is introduced, B never wins, and C is now always in last place. Doesn't that just seem wrong?

Well, here's the trick. Maybe it isn't wrong. Maybe that's entirely fair. I (and many others, it turns out) think the whole requirement (it's called the "Irrelevant Alternatives" criteria) is flawed to begin with.

First, it's important to recognize that just because a third candidate may change the order of two other candidates, it doesn't mean that will always happen. But second, it's just as important to consider the emotional dynamics that could create such a vote. Look at the vote results above again. What really happened? Well first, look at relative loyalty. There are the people that preferred A to C, and the people that preferred C to A. The A fans were much more loyal to A than the C fans were to C. The new candidate never bisected the difference between C and A for the C fans, and in many cases they decided they liked B better. C lost power among his base here, while A did not. There was greater strength of passion among the A voters than the C voters. And also, it suggests that the C voters didn't see a huge difference between C and A, while the A voters did. Perhaps A had a very strong regional base that wasn't compromised by B joining in. Perhaps the original C voters was made up of people that weren't strong C voters, but merely a coalition instead, and then the introduction of B busted the coalition. These aren't just maybe-perhaps, they are (IMO) the more likely explanations of what could have enabled this vote. When you start looking at the story behind the number, the results starts to sound a bit more rational. The numbers themselves suggest that of C's original supporters, many of them felt they were compromising.

The other thing is, each candidate is a vote in and of itself. If I'm trying to put a vote in for my favorite film, I'm not voting for the best ending, or the best poignant smile, or the best sunset - I'm weighing it all in my head and picking my favorite, all things considered. And since I'm summing up criterias in my head, I can have cycles amongst *my* preferences just the same as an overall vote could. If I had to consider all my films on a head-to-head basis, I doubt I'd be consistent. I'd pick Fearless over Zoolander because I like its depth. I'd pick Titanic over Fearless because of its sheer majesty. I'd pick Zoolander over Titanic, because comparatively, Titanic exhausts me. Cycles are rational, because when people rank candidates over each other, they aren't one-quality candidates. Each candidate has a collection of qualities that are more important depending upon the matchup. In other words, it's all about the matchup. (Think of college football!!)

So, there are plenty of defenses of how a new candidate can make the tallies turn out that way, and how the tallies can then make the vote turn out that way. The Irrelevant Alternatives criteria is more complicated than it sounds - just because an alternative is introduced and doesn't win does not make that alternative irrelevant.
(3:35 PM)
0 comments

~^~^~
Saturday, November 09, 2002
Hooray! We finished Tamara's soundtrack today. 27 minutes of peaceful music that she was desperately trying to make NOT sound like Muzak. I think she succeeded easily on that count, by the way. We had it synced up to the video, we recorded it digitally, exported it to stereo, burned it to cd, and she's mailing the cd with instructions on how to sync it to the master video on Monday. We also loaded it into iMovie and made a 50-meg movie file to play with - I also made an mp3 of the soundtrack and loaded it into my iPod. Now she's all in love with the software and happy about her system and I can't wait to buy some of the same equipment and do some of it myself. She also says she is jazzed about the idea of writing some soundtrack music to StorySprawl. I'm excited about that because I also recently had a good idea about how to expand the StorySprawl project. What fun!
(8:33 PM)
0 comments
~^~^~
Friday, November 08, 2002
Check out the TVP I just got in the mail!

Stews and pot pies, here I come!

Woo-hoo!
(6:49 PM)
0 comments

~^~^~

I think where I'm ending up on the whole voting thing is:

Borda is the best method if you can assume that everyone votes honestly and rationally.
You can't assume that everyone votes honestly and rationally.
I'm still confused between Condorcet and Approval, but Condorcet just seems cooler to me.

I'm still confused on a number of matters, though.

Condorcet's rankings assume an equidistant preference shift between each choice. #1 is as much a better choice than #2 is for me as #2 is to #3. When really, I might be rabid about #1, while #2 and #3 might just be okay.
In Borda, #1 has an advantage over #5, five points to one (for five candidates). In Condorcet, it's just scored as a win.
I want a voting method that will measure how MUCH you want someone over another candidate (degree of rabidness), but without having to deal with all the fear-based voting that could entail (increasing a second-choice candidate means decreasing the likelihood of the first-choice candidate).

(1:15 PM)
0 comments
~^~^~
Thursday, November 07, 2002
EDGE: HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS And to balance out our coverage of democratic voting, let's move to an absolutely ridiculous defense of our voting system. Scroll down to the bottom and click through. The diagrams make it nice to read and thought-provoking, but this is a clear example of how a really mathematical and "clear-headed" person proceeds to ignore all sorts of issues that are inherently nonmathematical.
(8:49 PM)
0 comments
~^~^~

Making Sense out of Consensus - This is an absolutely fascinating article that shows the choice for Condorcet might not be so clearcut. I just can't believe that Borda is the best choice, though. Anyway, the article is mathy, but not horribly so - it's understandable.
(8:38 PM)
0 comments
~^~^~

A Case For Condorcet's Method - This is one of the better essays I've read on this - it makes some really good thought-provoking points on some of the misguidedness of our Campaign Finance Reforms.
(8:10 PM)
0 comments
~^~^~

Oh, I love my friend Harmony. I wrote her an email yesterday:

oh harmony harmony harmony. I want to be happier. I was thinking yesterday about how I was grumpy about love, tired about money, discouraged about beliefs, and I couldn't think of what else there was besides those three. what else is there? poof, please be happy, maybe if my friends were happier I'd be happier. I need more happy.
all right... guess I should go to sleep. maybe you will draw me a picture of a monkey? that might make me happier. draw me a monkey, harmony. I need a monkey picture.

So she just drew me this:

Awww! I feel much happier now. :-)
(7:29 PM)
0 comments

~^~^~

I've been doing a lot of reading over at Election Methods, which has a lot of information on Condorcet Voting.

It's very convincing. What's interesting, though, is that these people writing against it are as strongly against the Electoral College as they are for these decent voting systems.

And I pretty much disagree with that just as strongly. I like the Electoral College. Part of the reason I like it is because it is nifty, and it's dramatic. I'll ignore those defenses for now. Part of the reason other people like it is because if one state like Florida has major fraud problems, other states are insulated from it, and abolishing the EC would remove that insulation. I think that's a stupid defense. (Tangential explanation: If that's the only reason not to, it means they otherwise agree and it needs to be done, in which case they're just being cowards - suck it up and make it work. If it's not the only reason, there are undoubtedly better reasons than that to focus on, so move on from the fear-based one for the same reason.)

Why do I like the EC? Well, I'd tell you, except that one of my reasons just fell apart in my head while thinking it through, and now I'm not so sure about it. I'll have to get back to you!
(7:24 PM)
0 comments

~^~^~

So I came across this page in my surfing: Direct Representation. It talks about a flow from Plurality, to Proportional Representation (where if around 40% of voters vote "liberal", then around 40% of our representatives are liberal), to Direct Representation, which means that even the smallest 1% beliefs get represented.

So I started thinking about the old conundrum, how much should our representative vote what we want him to vote, how much should we trust her to vote what is in our best interests to vote? And where should we fall when those two are at odds? Because basically, sometimes they ARE at odds. What do we do then?

It is hard because sometimes an appropriate choice is only appropriate because something else inappropriate has been bought into. And if that more basic platform were challenged, maybe the matter in question could be decided differently. But with the state of the US, we've got webs and complete hierarchies, hell, practical organisms based off of layers of fucked-up-choices someone made long ago. Or choices that were valid then and fucked up now. Or layers upon layers of fucked-up-edness where the crust of it is actually quite helpful. Do you break the crust? Conceptually that's a strong yes for me, but I'll bet someone could devise a scenario where my yes would be more tentative...

So what are the dangers of Direct Representation? Maybe it would only be a danger if it were implemented tomorrow, but if we moved towards it slowly, maybe it would gradually get more healthy.

And what of the fact that a valid reason against something like Direct Representation ("if we do that we'll have schools made out of gold and no national defense and we'll all die even though we know calculus really well!") is essentially a fear-based reason? A reaction that essentially validates the belief that we need that kind of protection?

There's also the belief that goddammit, the whole reason we elect representatives is so we can delegate and not have to vote on every little thing ourselves. If we're represented TOO directly, then maybe it's just kind of beside the point. In other words, if the representatives are working for us, when are we just micromanaging and getting in the way?
(7:11 PM)
0 comments

~^~^~
Wednesday, November 06, 2002
The Tamster just burned a cd for the first time from her new digital music setup. G4, Logic Audio Gold, Roland JV 1010, Emagic 2|6, all on OS 9 (but burned on OS X). She's a bit too frustrated with the learning curve right now to fully appreciate it all, but I think it's a big milestone. It'll be way easy from now on.
(7:21 PM)
0 comments
~^~^~

Sitting with music. The Tamster is feeling overwhelmed by deadline, same as I was a week ago. I'm not fully recovered, but I want to help. Partly because I am trying to learn from what she's doing (scoring music to video). Partly because I feel partially responsible for how difficult her project ended up being. She's almost done. I'm pretty tired.

Clients are tough in freelancing. One of them is itchy about our recently-ended projects. The other one is putting me on hold. I've got a full day tomorrow. I've got a full week. Not fully confident in how reliable I'll be able to be this week because I'm tired.

Voting sucks. I had a bit of a surge but I'm depressed about the results. I get entranced sometimes about the thoughts of convincing large numbers of people to follow my points of view, but then I get discouraged and the idea has no appeal anymore.

Love, money, and beliefs. Sometimes I forget what else there is. I'm pretty drained by all three right now.

(2:29 AM)
0 comments

~^~^~
Tuesday, November 05, 2002
Here's a good explanation of how IRV is just screwy:

Say we have two extremist candidates and a centrist. For instance, say we have Pat Buchanan, Colin Powell, and Ralph Nader.

Now, say people rank them all:

5 million people vote only for Powell.
8 million left-wing people rank Nader first, Powell second.
7 million right-wing people rank Buchanan first, Powell second.

What's common sense? First, could a situation even vaguely similar to this happen? I think so. It's not a ridiculous scenario. Second, just stare at that for a second and tell me who you think should win.

Ok, now look at it this way. 13 million people prefer Powell to Buchanan. 12 million people prefer Powell to Nader. Only 8 million people voted for Nader. Only 7 million people voted for Buchanan. (This is how Condorcet voting looks at things.) Shouldn't Powell win?

If a voting system asks voters to rank candidates, isn't the implication that those rankings should be paid attention to?

IRV voting would eliminate Powell first, since he has the least first-place votes. Nader would win.
(2:46 AM)
0 comments

~^~^~

Election season has me in a voting sciences mood again.

Really fascinating that I am seeing more articles on the Borda Count recently, which some experts says is the only voting method WORSE than our current plurality (most votes win) system.

In Borda Count, you rank candidates. If there are five candidates, your top choice gets five points, second choice gets four points, etc. If everyone votes rationally, it works okay, but there's a big chance for strategic voting as well. Say your rational choice for three candidates, are: A, B, C. But A and B are in a tight race, and C is a longshot. To maximize A's chances, strategically it's better to rank your votes: A, C, B. You've artificially increased the gap between A and B and given A a better chance to win. This is a voting system that asks you to vote against your preference in order to vote your preference.

That's unfair. What do I mean by unfair? Turns out there is an academic definition of unfair in the voting world. Fair voting means that voting your actual preference order should never, never, never, mean that it increases the chances of candidates winning in an order other than your own.

See, there was this guy named Kenneth Arrow. And he proved that for any election of more than two candidates, it is impossible to have a fully fair election. Just flat out impossible. Isn't that depressing?

You think Instant Runoff Voting is the answer? IRV was very popular last election because it eliminates the spoiler effect. This is the other voting method written up in these articles. IRV means that you rank your candidates. Count all the 1st place votes. If no one gets over 50%, take away the lowest vote-getting first-placer, then refigure. Repeat until someone wins. It sounds cool - Nader's votes go to Gore, Gore wins - but there are a lot of demonstrations out there that show how it's possible that ranking someone low will increase their chances of winning and vice versa. And how if there's a competitive three-way race, very strange results can happen. Really weird things can happen with Instant Runoff Voting.

Back to Arrow. It turns out that there is ONE voting method that is extremely, extremely, extremely close to fully fair. And that is Condorcet voting. Here's how it works. Basically, the only truly fair vote is when it's between only two candidates. Everyone votes, winner takes all. Easy. But that's not choice - how do you do that with more candidates? Well, you rank your candidates, and look at it as a bunch of one on one candidates. Rank: A, B, C. That means that A->B, A->C, and B->C. Say someone else ranks B, C, A. That means that B->C, C->A, and B->A. Then you total them all together. A->B: 1. A->C: 1. B->C: 2. etc.

It turns out there is a very solid way of figuring out who wins the election in this method, and if one arguably flawed requirement of Arrow's Theorem is relaxed just a little bit, then it fits all of his criteria for fair voting. Most importantly, there is no need for strategic voting.

Of course, this whole subject only fits for people that actually want their preferences known. What happens when people don't? Like tonight - I know that many people are voting for Measure 23 not because they hope it will pass, but because they are sure it won't, but want it to only fail by a little bit so a better revised version will come out next election. Boy, is that asking for trouble. :) I ended up abstaining from voting on this particular measure (sort of unintentionally, but I think in hindsight that was the best way to go).
(2:17 AM)
0 comments

~^~^~

Conjecture: Microsoft is to the United States as Linux is to the rest of the world. Discuss.
(12:15 AM)
1 comment
~^~^~
Monday, November 04, 2002
Slashdot | Mathematicians: Elections Flawed - This is a comment in response to this article about the flawed nature of plurality voting. Pretty interesting. Actually, there's a lot of great comments in this slashdot article throughout, like this one.
(2:43 AM)
0 comments
~^~^~