Ranking Books - Voting VS Donating

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I bet someone would manage to organise trolling both of those into a "yes" vote before long.

Lol. That would be funny. You could set a rule you can’t vote yes to both though.

Don't forget to do it halfway through your voting run and then claim that it was all rigged when it didn't work out the way you wanted.

[Galloism]

Lol. That would be funny. You could set a rule you can’t vote yes to both though.

Don't forget to do it halfway through your voting run and then claim that it was all rigged when it didn't work out the way you wanted.

Absolutely.

Being serious for a moment, there is one thing to learn here, if you didn’t already know it.

Preference strength revelation is hard.

[Neutraligon]

Use an external website for the voting, and lock votes by IP address.

That would cut down on a lot. At least, it would eliminate the non technically savvy.

Well, there are also people who have access to multiple computers in different locations. I could easil troll that by using my own computer, the ones in the three different libraries at school and a few others I have easy and quick access to.

[Galloism]

That would cut down on a lot. At least, it would eliminate the non technically savvy.

Well, there are also people who have access to multiple computers in different locations. I could easil troll that by using my own computer, the ones in the three different libraries at school and a few others I have easy and quick access to.

I’ve got access to about 20 IP endpoints through my work, plus the one at home and the one at the office. And if I really wanted to, I could also use the public library and a couples relatives houses.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Don't forget to do it halfway through your voting run and then claim that it was all rigged when it didn't work out the way you wanted.

Absolutely.

Being serious for a moment, there is one thing to learn here, if you didn’t already know it.

Preference strength revelation is hard.

That's because most of us are not idiots.

What would be the point of revealing our preference strengths unless we got a reward for doing so?

Let's put a woman: What is the point for me to reveal to this woman how much I truly like her if I am not going to get anything in return? In what world do you have to live in that you're going to take the risk at no benefit to you? Furthermore, at what moment is said risk even worth it, say if she has a boyfriend you don't even know about.

Why would you disclose your true preference towards her if there are many values that should make you rightly distrustful of doing so and instead the better move is to try to mask your true valuation of her?

[The Two Jerseys]

Nope although good humor took absolute advantage. No instead they used it to make sure the community thought well of them and the police and used it to teach kids about fire safety.

this is why fire services can't be privatised: no business acumen. Sad!

Fun fact: back in the day when fire companies were organized by insurance underwriters, they would only respond to a fire if the property owner had a policy with that insurer, and when they got there their main concern was limiting property damage so that the insurer didn't have to pay out claims.

[Kubra]

this is why fire services can't be privatised: no business acumen. Sad!

Fun fact: back in the day when fire companies were organized by insurance underwriters, they would only respond to a fire if the property owner had a policy with that insurer, and when they got there their main concern was limiting property damage so that the insurer didn't have to pay out claims.

as God intended
In a perfect world, fire services would run arson subsidiaries

[The Two Jerseys]

Fun fact: back in the day when fire companies were organized by insurance underwriters, they would only respond to a fire if the property owner had a policy with that insurer, and when they got there their main concern was limiting property damage so that the insurer didn't have to pay out claims.

as God intended
In a perfect world, fire services would run arson subsidiaries

You do know that your ideal fire department already exists, right?

It's called the Mafia.

[Galloism]

this is why fire services can't be privatised: no business acumen. Sad!

Fun fact: back in the day when fire companies were organized by insurance underwriters, they would only respond to a fire if the property owner had a policy with that insurer, and when they got there their main concern was limiting property damage so that the insurer didn't have to pay out claims.

That makes perfect sense, economically. After all, the life insurance company is probably a different company, and why would you spend money to save someone ELSE money? That would be irrational to spend personal money to preserve value for someone else.

This is one of those perverse incentive things.

[The Holy Therns]

as God intended
In a perfect world, fire services would run arson subsidiaries

You do know that your ideal fire department already exists, right?

It's called the Mafia.

"Don't think of it as extortion, think of it as communicating your valuation of having your shop not get burned down."

[Kubra]

as God intended
In a perfect world, fire services would run arson subsidiaries

You do know that your ideal fire department already exists, right?

It's called the Mafia.

bless our boys in Boccincini

[The Two Jerseys]

Fun fact: back in the day when fire companies were organized by insurance underwriters, they would only respond to a fire if the property owner had a policy with that insurer, and when they got there their main concern was limiting property damage so that the insurer didn't have to pay out claims.

That makes perfect sense, economically. After all, the life insurance company is probably a different company, and why would you spend money to save someone ELSE money? That would be irrational to spend personal money to preserve value for someone else.

This is one of those perverse incentive things.

When they voted to establish government-run fire departments, do you think that the poor people whose houses would burn down because they couldn't afford insurance voted by outspending the amount that the insurance companies put up to keep the existing system in place?

Because I'm sure that's exactly what happened!

[Xerographica]

Earlier Galloisim mentioned voting with time. This possibility was informally considered by John Holbo around 6 years ago...

Consider three ways of allocating votes.

You get more votes the longer you are willing to sit in a chair in a room for hours on end with nothing but nothing to do.

You get more votes the longer you are willing to do the downward-facing dog.

You get more votes the more you pay.

These are all potential methods of measuring intensity of preference. In some ways they are all better than the system we have got, because they all attempt to measure intensity at all, whereas one person-one vote does not. That said, they are all obviously flawed. The first will skew voting to people who don’t have jobs or things they really need to do that keep them from sitting in a boring room doing nothing. The second will skew voting to yoga practitioners. The third will skew voting to rich people. Now do I know for sure that, say, yoga practitioners have different values than everyone else has, so that this skew will be a problem? No. If I had to guess, yoga skews left. But maybe that’s totally wrong and there is no correlation between being good at the downward-facing dog and any kind of political value that anyone might be called upon to express with a vote. All the same, I’m not inclined to adopt a system that gives a group disproportionate representation, for an irrelevant reason, even if that disproportion does not clearly create a problem. The basic equality proposition underlying one person-one vote, and also the pragmatics of it, suggest that you should not be giving someone more votes than someone else gets for an obviously irrelevant reason. - John Holbo, Selling Votes

Today, thanks to the Marginal Revolution blog, I ran across a passage about an alternative way to measure preference intensity...

“All the rest—the quality of the bread, the tenderness and thinness of the slices of meat, the pickles, mustard, coleslaw, the Dr. Brown’s—are certainly necessary conditions for the power of the sandwich to satisfy,” he continued. “But these are hardly sufficient conditions.” The true test, he wrote, “would be one requiring a measurement of the quantity of saliva induced in each of these men by the mere mention of the names of each of the delicatessens.” - Jessica Leigh Hester, When Two Economists Scientifically Ranked New York’s Best Deli Sandwiches

Maybe I don't salivate at the mention of my favorite book, but I'm sure that I must have some sort of physiological responses.

Also, I learned of some other relevant terms (ie "donate-to-vote") and manged to find additional pages about the idea...

StreamLab feature suggestion: donation voting

Bitcoin: Donation Auction Voting for Coin Decision-Making & Development

Cast A Donation Vote Using OneCause

360 Photo Contest (example contests... dog, cat)

GoGo Photo Contest

MulaBula (article about it)

FundingWars (article about it)

[Galloism]

Maybe I don't salivate at the mention of my favorite book, but I'm sure that I must have some sort of physiological responses.

So does this mean you’re giving up on the “gamble to vote” and “piss money away to demonstrate importance” ideas you had before, and are looking for greener pastures in future tech?

[Forsher]

I might have misread it, I was thinking that the second place bidder would have to pay.

Which might actually be a pretty interesting experiment as far as strategic bidding goes...

Not going to intentionally lie... but I'm mostly sure that's what I thought when I was introduced to the idea too; I definitely misunderstood but that might not be exactly how.

That being said, there are auction forms where you pay for every bid you make and there is the (theoretical???) case where everyone makes only one bid but pays regardless of the outcome (this is apparently a way of modelling lobbying).

Mostly I like to think of the time Paddington went to an auction with Mr Gruber. He didn't really know what to do so he'd bid things up... and greatly increased the value of the antiques because people started wondering what they didn't know. Which, of course, is both a problem and an advantage of using game theory to analyse auctions.