Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:23:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Let us suppose that:
>
> * There are two voters X and Y, whose real utilities are
> Voter X: A=+10 (`Good') Voter Y: B=+10
> B= 0 (`OK') A= 0
> FD= -5 FD= -5
> (Let us neglect the quorum for the moment as I want to have just
> two voters to simplify the situation.)
FD should be 0 utility. This doesn't affect things greatly,
but helps keep perspective. That makes it:
Voter X: A=+15 (`Good') Voter Y: B=+15
B= 5 (`OK') A= 5
FD= 0 FD= 0
> Here are the possible outcomes seen from X:
>
> Payoffs for X Y votes B:A:FD `cooperate' Y votes B:FD:A `defect'
> X cooperates +5 (50% of +10) 0
> X defects +10 -5
This becomes:
Payoffs for X Y votes B:A:FD `cooperate' Y votes B:FD:A `defect'
X cooperates +10 (avg of 5 and 15) 5
X defects +15 0
The same thing, basically, but all outcomes are positive unless both
"defect".
If X wants to minimize potential losses (and X has certain knowledge that
no other votes will be cast), X should cooperate.
If X has no knowledge how Y will vote (but knows for sure that no one
else will be voting), the potential payoff for X is equal (7.5 with my
numbers, 2.5 with yours) for the "defect" and "don't defect" cases.
> Whether X's best strategy is cooperate depends on whether Y
> cooperates, and X's outcome is mainly controlled by whether Y
> cooperates or not. If X knows that Y is going to defect then X should
> cooperate.
>
> This is a strange and dysfunctional game if what we want is for people
> to discuss and vote honestly.
I'm not sure I agree.
> The alternative voting system, with the word `strictly' removed, works
> like this:
>
> Payoffs for X Y votes B:A:FD `cooperate' Y votes B:FD:A `defect'
> X cooperates +5 +5 *
> X defects +5 * +5 *
>
> This is much more sensible. (Entries marked * are ones where the
> chairman could choose FD too.)
I don't see that removing the word "strictly" has this effect at all.
The quorum for committee votes is 2, which means that each option must
receive 2 votes preferring it over the default option or it is ignored.
Furthermore, 1 is not greater than 1 any more than 1 is strictly greater
than 1. So even without quorum, I don't see any benefit for this
case.
--
Raul
Reply to: