Beruang's Electoral Math

Great Debates
1

In this Electoral Collage thread Beruang has introduced a mathematical argument demonstrating the benefits of the EC. The argument is interesting and since Beruang seems to have spent some time on it ( the guy has spreadsheets ) I am hoping that he would like to continue it here. I think that this debate is best removed from the other thread, which got a little heated. Anyway, some fresh perspectives would be welcome, particularly if they are skilled in math.

I don’t want to paraphrase Beruang or C&P his posts because I don’t fully understand the argument.
This will make it awkward if he decides not to post here.

So take it away, Beruang.
[sup]please?[/sup]

2

I wonder if Beruang could figure out for me just how many more strategically placed votes Bush would have needed to have gotten 400 ec votes?:slight_smile:

3

Makes perfect sense to me. He’s essentially using as a unit of power not “vote” but “vote-influence”. It’s a composite unit, much like how in physics force is measured as “kilogram-metres-per-second-squared”. You affect the number of units of “vote-influence” either by affecting the number of votes or the influence of one vote.

The trick then comes in defining influence. Well, he’s done it in a probabilistic fashion by assigning a value of 1 if the vote makes a difference and a value of 0 if it doesn’t. You then multiply across the probability of all scenarios and Bernard’s yer auntie - you have an influence rating (which will be somewhere between 0 and 1).

He then explores how this influence rating changes under different scenarios: direct vs disparate voting and different sizes and numbers of states. He contends that if you run some simulations you find that “influence” defined in this way is universally greater under disparate voting. This seems intuitively correct to me, since you are multiplying up the number of situations possible and hence the chances of making a difference.

So the only question is whether you agree with his definition of influence. This is where the crux of the debate lies - it certainly is one, rather intuitive, way of defining it. But at the same time it is arbitrary - why go for a linear scale? In balance, I rather like it. It’s simple, direct and seems right. But I’m open to other definitions.

There. Is that clearer or would you like me to expand on anything?

pan