Utility: Difference between revisions

a note from talking with Effective Altruists yesterday
No edit summary
(a note from talking with Effective Altruists yesterday)
Line 26:
 
There are two ways to derive ranked ballots using ordinal utility. The first is for a voter to ask themselves "who are the candidates I would want to win if I could choose the winner myself?" This is equivalent to asking who you would honestly vote for in [[FPTP]], and it shows who your 1st choice(s) are. If you then remove them from consideration and repeat the question, you find your 2nd choices, etc. The second way is for a voter to ask themselves, for every possible [[head-to-head matchup]], who they'd prefer. The [[Copeland]] ranking shows the voter's ranking of the candidates. This is arguably one way to justify [[Smith-efficient]] [[Condorcet methods]]: if, for an individual voter, the best candidate(s) are the ones from the smallest group that win all head-to-head matchups against all other candidates based only on that voter's judgment, then why not for society? Similar reasoning shows why [[Score voting]] can be justified using rated utilities in head-to-head matchups to quantify harm or benefit done to the voter.
 
== Utility vs utility ==
 
Note that utility in the democratic context refers to "giving voters what they want", or making them happy with the outcome of the election, but does not imply that what they want is actually good for them, or that it will positively affect their well-being in the future (which "utilitarianism" would imply in other contexts). Voting methods can only work with the preference data they are given.