= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
HonoreDB comments on Histocracy: Open, Effective Group Decision-Making With Weighted Voting - 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 (62)
Neat, I think this is the second time you've scooped me like that. As I mentioned in the other post, I don't have an exact timestamp for when I first came up with this or put it on the web, but as you say it's obvious enough that someone probably beat me to it. We, and it turns out the Black Belt Bayesian, all got there independently after all.
The math is right; note that it's a "<" sign in the multiplicative equation, and everything in the additive equation is multiplied by -1. Given the assumption of independence, it really is that simple.
Oops, the math is right. You are going to have problems in the other direction due to the falseness of the independence assumption - in a two-party system, whichever party is larger will generally win. But that happens today anyway.