Re: POLL RESULTS: What is the action that produces a Verifiable Presentation?

If you were interested in Fibonacci inspired ranked choice voting, you 
can read this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.8180.pdf

Opavote doesn’t seem to have this function, which is admittedly rare in 
usage. Operationally, what I’d do is give someone’s #1 choice 8 points, 
#2 choice 5 points, #3 choice 3 points, #4 choice 2 points, #5 choice 1 
point, and all the others 0 points. The end result is "magnifying" the 
difference between the top 3 candidates, with the goal of /making it 
easier for the group to psychologically accept/ choice #1.

Anyway, I’ve noticed that in actual usage, weighting with Fibonacci 
numbers “feels” more manageable than “quadratic” voting, but I don’t 
have a game theoretic proof for this, or anything that addresses Arrow’s 
Impossibility Theorem. And I agree with Christopher’s comment that 
Condorcet often provides a better result, but isn’t very practical in usage.

I believe that voting systems should actually measure /feelings/ about 
the group's user experience as a key component of the social utility 
function — i.e., do voters “feel satisfied" by the results. If we poll 
to collect enough data, we could potentially find new voting algorithms 
that may fit the psychosocial needs of voters better than a 
Pareto-optimal solution prepared by game theorists.

This stuff addresses issues of voter polarization so it's an important 
thing for society to figure out. I believe the Electoral College was 
intended to do something like this = magnify the results of a close 
election - but frankly, it's been gamed and has had the opposite effect.

Anyway, to be practical, it /might/ be that the group’s mean 
satisfaction score could increase by holding a runoff for the top 3 
choices: create, generate and compose. But it’s really not worth the 
effort for such a small benefit!

Moses




-
*Moses Ma | FutureLab Consulting Inc*
moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com | moses@ngenven.com
v +1.415.952.7888 <tel:+1.415.952.7888> | m +1.415.568.1068 
<tel:+1.415.568.1068> | skype mosesma



> On Mar 4, 2023 at 10:31 AM, <Manu Sporny 
> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 1:21 PM Moses Ma
> <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>  wrote:
> > This is totally nitpicking, but it’s often better to use Fibonacci weighted ranked voting, rather than a Borda count, to magnify the difference between top competitors in a multi-voted election.
>
> The tool we're using allows us to, after the fact, re-tally ballots
> based on different algorithms. Here are our choices:
>
> https://www.opavote.com/methods/recommended
>
> I'm happy to recount using a different algorithm as long as the person
> suggesting it is willing to explain/defend why the recount method is
> better and then interpret the results. There are a number of
> algorithms that we can choose from that would require hours of reading
> to understand why you'd use one over the other, so we'd need someone
> to boil that down for us commoners. :P
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny -https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>