The model is not easy to subject to full, end-to-end testing. It seems reasonable to test it one part at a time. I’m doing the best I can to do so:
I’ve run an experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk involving hundreds of experimental subjects voting in dozens of simulated elections to probe my strategy model.
I’m working on getting survey data and developing statistical tools to refine my statistical model (mostly, posterior predictive checks; but it’s not easy, given that this is a deeper hierarchical model than most).
In terms of the utilitarian assumptions of my model, I’m not sure how those are testable rather than just philosophical / assumed axioms. Not that I regard these assumptions as truly axiomatic, but that I think they’re pretty necessary to get anywhere at all, and in practice unlikely to be violated severely enough to invalidate the work.
I haven’t started work on testing / refining my media model (other than some head-scratching), but I can imagine how to do at least a few spot checks with posterior predictive checks too.
The assumptions that preference and utility correlate positively, even in an environment where candidates are strategic about exploiting voter irrationality, are certainly questionable. But insofar as these are violated, it would just make democracy a bad idea in general, not invalidate the fact that plurality is still a worse idea than other voting systems such as approval. Also, I think it would be basically impossible to test these assumptions without implausibly accurate and unbiased measurements of true utility. Finally, call me a hopeless optimist, but I do actually have faith that democracy is a good idea because “you can’t fool all the people all the time”.
I do actually have faith that democracy is a good idea
Democracy is complicated. For a simple example, consider full direct democracy: instant whole-population referendums on every issue. I am not sure anyone considers this a good idea—successful real-life democratic systems (e.g. the US) are built on limited amounts of democracy which is constrained in many ways. Given this, democracy looks to be a Goldilocks-type phenomenon where you don’t want too little, but you don’t want too much either.
And, of course, democracy involves much more than just voting—there are heavily… entangled concepts like the rule of law, human rights, civil society, etc.
Full direct democracy is a bad idea because it’s incredibly inefficient (and thus also boring/annoying, and also subject to manipulation by people willing to exploit others’ boredom/annoyance). This has little or nothing to do with whether people’s preferences correlate with their utilities, which is the question I was focused on. In essence, this isn’t a true Goldilocks situation (“you want just the right amount of heat”) but rather a simple tradeoff (“you want good decisions, but don’t want to spend all your time making them”).
As to the other related concepts… I think this is getting a bit off-topic. The question is, is energy (money) spent on pursuing better voting systems more of a valid “saving throw” than when spent on pursuing better individual rationality. That’s connected to the question of the preference/utility correlation of current-day, imperfectly-rational voters. I’m not seeing the connection to rule of law &c.
Full direct democracy is a bad idea because it’s incredibly inefficient
No, I don’t think so. It is a bad idea even in a society technologically advanced to make it efficient and even if it’s invoked not frequently enough to make it annoying.
whether people’s preferences correlate with their utilities
People’s preferences are many, multidimensional, internally inconsistent, and dynamic. I am not quite sure what do you want to correlate to a single numerical value of “utility”.
The question is, is energy (money) spent on pursuing better voting systems more of a valid “saving throw” than when spent on pursuing better individual rationality.
Why are you considering only these two options?
I’m not seeing the connection to rule of law &c.
The connection is that what is a “better” voting system depends on the context, context that includes things like rule of law, etc.
You’re raising some valid questions, but I can’t respond to all of them. Or rather, I could respond (granting some of your arguments, refining some, and disputing some), but I don’t know if it’s worth it. Do you have an underlying point to make, or are you just looking for quibbles? If it’s the latter, I still thank you for responding (it’s always gratifying to see people care about issues that I think are important, even if they disagree); but I think I’ll disengage, because I expect that whatever response I give would have its own blemishes for you to find.
The model is not easy to subject to full, end-to-end testing. It seems reasonable to test it one part at a time. I’m doing the best I can to do so:
I’ve run an experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk involving hundreds of experimental subjects voting in dozens of simulated elections to probe my strategy model.
I’m working on getting survey data and developing statistical tools to refine my statistical model (mostly, posterior predictive checks; but it’s not easy, given that this is a deeper hierarchical model than most).
In terms of the utilitarian assumptions of my model, I’m not sure how those are testable rather than just philosophical / assumed axioms. Not that I regard these assumptions as truly axiomatic, but that I think they’re pretty necessary to get anywhere at all, and in practice unlikely to be violated severely enough to invalidate the work.
I haven’t started work on testing / refining my media model (other than some head-scratching), but I can imagine how to do at least a few spot checks with posterior predictive checks too.
The assumptions that preference and utility correlate positively, even in an environment where candidates are strategic about exploiting voter irrationality, are certainly questionable. But insofar as these are violated, it would just make democracy a bad idea in general, not invalidate the fact that plurality is still a worse idea than other voting systems such as approval. Also, I think it would be basically impossible to test these assumptions without implausibly accurate and unbiased measurements of true utility. Finally, call me a hopeless optimist, but I do actually have faith that democracy is a good idea because “you can’t fool all the people all the time”.
tl;dr: I’m working on this.
Democracy is complicated. For a simple example, consider full direct democracy: instant whole-population referendums on every issue. I am not sure anyone considers this a good idea—successful real-life democratic systems (e.g. the US) are built on limited amounts of democracy which is constrained in many ways. Given this, democracy looks to be a Goldilocks-type phenomenon where you don’t want too little, but you don’t want too much either.
And, of course, democracy involves much more than just voting—there are heavily… entangled concepts like the rule of law, human rights, civil society, etc.
Full direct democracy is a bad idea because it’s incredibly inefficient (and thus also boring/annoying, and also subject to manipulation by people willing to exploit others’ boredom/annoyance). This has little or nothing to do with whether people’s preferences correlate with their utilities, which is the question I was focused on. In essence, this isn’t a true Goldilocks situation (“you want just the right amount of heat”) but rather a simple tradeoff (“you want good decisions, but don’t want to spend all your time making them”).
As to the other related concepts… I think this is getting a bit off-topic. The question is, is energy (money) spent on pursuing better voting systems more of a valid “saving throw” than when spent on pursuing better individual rationality. That’s connected to the question of the preference/utility correlation of current-day, imperfectly-rational voters. I’m not seeing the connection to rule of law &c.
No, I don’t think so. It is a bad idea even in a society technologically advanced to make it efficient and even if it’s invoked not frequently enough to make it annoying.
People’s preferences are many, multidimensional, internally inconsistent, and dynamic. I am not quite sure what do you want to correlate to a single numerical value of “utility”.
Why are you considering only these two options?
The connection is that what is a “better” voting system depends on the context, context that includes things like rule of law, etc.
You’re raising some valid questions, but I can’t respond to all of them. Or rather, I could respond (granting some of your arguments, refining some, and disputing some), but I don’t know if it’s worth it. Do you have an underlying point to make, or are you just looking for quibbles? If it’s the latter, I still thank you for responding (it’s always gratifying to see people care about issues that I think are important, even if they disagree); but I think I’ll disengage, because I expect that whatever response I give would have its own blemishes for you to find.
In other words: OK, so what?
Some people find blemish-finding services valuable, some don’t :-)
Fair enough. Thanks. Again, I agree with some of your points. I like blemish-picking as long as it doesn’t require open-ended back-and-forth.