= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wnoise comments on Vote Qualifications, Not Issues - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (185)
No, because improvements in most areas have a cutoff: making the tax-structure better enough to compensate for the loss due to some other odious position simply might not be possible.
And there are a host of non-linear effects like that, from voting coalitions to simply non-linear utility functions.
You can substitute some measure taking the structure of your preferences into account, e.g. some measure of the difference in your utility* between their and your perfect political outcomes.
*pretending that humans have utility functions
Absolutely. That is exactly what you have to do. My point is that if you have:
utility = sum over policy areas of ability-to-change(policy) times (your-worth(their-preferred(policy)) - your-worth(default(policy)))
Most summaries of ability-to-change(policy) as a single number will have examples of your-worth(their-preferred(policy)) such that increasing their overall ability to implement their platform does worse, even in the cases where they broadly agree with you.