Eric -
I wonder if there is a game theory problem to be worked on here.
Naturally there would be, the question of course would be about the
relevance and interest in such a problem (or suite o
Arrow's Impossibility is real but no more significant IMO than the real-world
ambiguities and paradoxes introduced by practical realities such as voter
suppression and fraud, system hacking and mechanical errors (e.g. hanging
chads)…
The Impossibility Theorem has the character of a case-existence proof: for any
algorithm, there is a case of voter preferences for which that algorithm
produces an unwanted outcome.
In the sense of only counting cases, it reminds me of no-free-lunch theorems:
for any algorithm that is fast to solve one problem of combinatorial search,
there is some other problem for which it is slow. However, the NFL _threorem_
— that no algorithm is any better than any other — depends on an appropriately
symmetric search space and a suitable associated uniform measure over problems
on that space. If search and optimization are embedded in a larger dynamic
where correlation between algorithms is allowed, there can be global better or
worse approaches.
I don’t (as in every other area) have details and references ready in
memory, but David Wolpert wrote some of his later papers on NFL addressing the
ways it ceases to apply under changed assumptions.
I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of Arrow Impossibility in a context of
a kind of ecosystem of adversaries.
Yes, I think this is the crux of the implications of my questions and
observations on the topic. It would seem that the ecosystem or
landscape associated with the very idea of democracy (representative or
direct) allows (and deserves) more exploration. The acute point I was
making is that I don't believe that one can dismiss ranked choice
methods because it can be proven that there are point solutions which
are pathological to the original goal (discovering collective preference?).
To game any algorithm, crucially with the outcome that not only _some_ voter
is handled poorly, but that _a sufficiently large pool_ of voters is handled
poorly that the algorithm is not best, requires arranging the preference case
that violates the algorithm for suitably many voters. Is this coordination
problem harder for some preference-orders than for others?
This is a good question... I have a little experience around related
topics, but have not really explored it in relationship to "preference"
in this sense. It also seems that "preference" is not really crisp, and
is subject to abrupt revisions (how many would-be Hillary Voters chose
not to vote when Comey's e-mail exposure came out, and how many would-be
Trump Voters withdrew from him when the Billy Bush tapes were aired?).
Is there something akin to “canalization” in evolutionary biology, where some
algorithms live further from the boundary of being collectively tipped into
producing the wrong outcome than others? Thus, are there measures of
robustness for statistical violation of algorithms based on what happens in
most cases rather than what happens in the worst case, as there are for
spin-glass phase transition problems?
This is where I find this list to be at it's best, when the deep and
broad thinkers here recognize a real-world problem and how it maps into
the abstractions we are already capable enough with to study it much
more thoughtfully than pop culture/media is even capable of, much less
inclined. Of course, any result we might discover in such analysis
still needs to be rendered back into recognizeable language and metaphor
for the general public to understand well enough to respond to with more
than knee-jerk support/rejection.
I don't mean this to sound (be?) techno-elitist, it is one of the
things that those of us with enough background have a chance of
contributing, just as (ideally) each person has a vote to cast and a
day-job. Those folks whose job is to continue to pull coal out of the
ground until the demand curve crosses the cost (including
socially-defined regulatory) curve, do us a favor by (mostly) keeping
their heads down and doing their job. Meanwhile, it behooves the rest
of us to make sure that when the only demand for coal is the boutique
one to fill the stockings of bad boys and girl that those who kept on
doing that (apparently necessary) work to the end have something else
suitable to move on to (could be early retirement, with or without a
battle with black-lung).
Another thing it seems unlikely I will ever put time into being serious about.
Or maybe there is already a large standing literature that claims to have
addressed this.
This is a key point to another thread I haven't found the time/focus to
do more than allude to, the "Commons". Dave (and others including
myself sometimes) can be very big on the idea of self-reliance,
individualism, personal responsibility.... but without factoring in the
true role of the "Constructed Commons" and the "Exploitable Natural
Commons", those arguments seem very self-indulgent, entitled privilege,
and me-firsty.
The fact that there is almost surely a "standing literature" which might
or might not claim to have addressed this instantiation in particular,
is a key part of said "Constructed Commons". The potential value of
this seems well (if not best) addressed by a loose collective of people
with diverse backgrounds, interests, abilities and resources, even as
simply as in a rambling series of tangential posts on the topic by a
tiny subset of the O(1k) mail-list here. I think this is what Nick
returns to often (the value of these discussions and his personal desire
to see them condensed into something more formal/accessible).
Your own contribution here is (at least) that of powerful catalyst for
this kind of discussion. While you claim to have only shallow and
sometimes narrow knowledge of these topics, the *relative* breadth and
depth of your offerings stimulates others here to speak up, dig deeper,
throw down.
Maybe *I* will find some time to dig around for said Region of the
Constructed Commons... and perhaps others already are familiar with
rich territory to look in.
Eric
On Dec 28, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote:
oops... originally sent only to Marcus by mistake...
On 12/28/18 6:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/28/politics/maine-governor-certifies-congressional-election/index.html
From: Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 9:50:02 AM
To: Marcus Daniels
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 2019 - The end of Trumpism
Marcus writes:
Steve writes:
"Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority"
The majority elected Hillary Clinton.
Marcus
The Electoral College is archaic and ambiguous:
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#changes.
Perhaps our current orange-tinted clusterf*ck will continue to degenerate to
the point of motivating the necessary will to mount the necessary
constitutional amendment.
Republicans are acutely good at gaming vulnerable systems to their benefit
(gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.) but the DNC and Hillary proved to be
their equal during the primary with Superdelegates.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/11/democrat-primary-elections-need-reform
Ranked Choice voting seems ultimately yet more promising to *improve* the
selection of our representatives. I believe that Maine is running that
experiment for us now at the State level. Arrow's Impossibility is real but no
more significant IMO than the real-world ambiguities and paradoxes introduced
by practical realities such as voter suppression and fraud, system hacking and
mechanical errors (e.g. hanging chads)... Technology (can a direct democracy
be facilitated by something like block-chain technology?) might resolve some of
these questions, but very likely it will miss the more fundamental
philosophical questions.
We are a Federal Republic with a Representative Democracy for good reasons... some of the
context of those "good reasons" surely has evolved over the 250ish years it has
been in place while the mechanisms maybe have not evolved as quickly. Individual and
small groups of Opportunistic, Brash, Narcissists can usually outmanouvre such a slow
moving leviathan. I'm not sure what to do about that.
How does Direct Democracy distinguish itself from Populism and Mob Rule? What
constitutes (guarantees/assures?) an engaged and informed electorate?
But the question remains: Is there a better way to meet the goals of governance than the
democracies we have tried and/or imagined? How do we balance (or align?) the needs of
the group and of the individual? Is "Democracy the worst form of government except
for all of the others we have tried" (Churchill paraphrase)?
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
