Approval Voting vs Delegation

[bytemaster]

You don't vote for anyone and thus by default 'do not approve' of anyone.

[santaclause102]

It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??

The way it is set up you can "vote" or "not vote" for up to N delegates.   Everyone has equal influence if you choose to exercise it.

Not voting under this system means that the other candidates have less support and thus are less likely to get in than the one you do vote for.

Is there still a default setting for the wallet that votes for delegates which score high in different parameters?

Not present at the moment. Currently, the wallet simply makes a random selection of your trusted delegates to vote for in a transaction.

Where do my votes go if I didn't select / change anything in my wallet? Because you said "YOUR trusted delegates..."

[Agent86]

Can you please describe how we are going to kick the evil delegate out of the top 101 since we can't vote against ? 

Is it still a whack-a-mole game if the evil delegate owns a large amount of shares and can vote himself (another account) back ?

Hi heyD, I hope this explanation helps:
the "whack-a-mole" term comes from the idea of trying to vote down a delegate who then switches his support to another delegate he controls and then you have to switch your downvote etc.  This doesn't apply to approval voting because you don't need to actively downvote delegates.  In some sense you are by default already downvoting every delegate that you haven't actively decided to upvote.

Unlike in the previous system, the evil delegate can't vote himself in on his own because he needs much more support to get elected.  His stake is not enough to compete with delegates that have support from the whole community.  If he switches to a new delegate he is starting all over from scratch with no votes and no trust and it will take him a long time to get supporters.

People need to build trust from the community to get elected.  If they then reveal themselves to be evil (or more likely incompetent) the community will pull their support quickly in favor of better alternatives.  You get rid of bad delegates by simply keeping a bit of an eye on the delegates you voted for to make sure they performing well and if they don't, you remove your vote for them and vote for someone else instead.

[vikram]

It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??

The way it is set up you can "vote" or "not vote" for up to N delegates.   Everyone has equal influence if you choose to exercise it.

Not voting under this system means that the other candidates have less support and thus are less likely to get in than the one you do vote for.

Is there still a default setting for the wallet that votes for delegates which score high in different parameters?

Not present at the moment. Currently, the wallet simply makes a random selection of your trusted delegates to vote for in a transaction.

[santaclause102]

It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??

The way it is set up you can "vote" or "not vote" for up to N delegates.   Everyone has equal influence if you choose to exercise it.

Not voting under this system means that the other candidates have less support and thus are less likely to get in than the one you do vote for.

Is there still a default setting for the wallet that votes for delegates which score high in different parameters?

[bytemaster]

It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??

The way it is set up you can "vote" or "not vote" for up to N delegates.   Everyone has equal influence if you choose to exercise it.

Not voting under this system means that the other candidates have less support and thus are less likely to get in than the one you do vote for.

[santaclause102]

It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??

[gamey]

I didnt follow emskis thread... Trying to get it....

Is the following correct? I can vote for x delegates which will divide the voting power of my stake among the x delegates.

BM said

A slate is a selection of 101 delegates.
A random slate is a random selection of N delegates out of M  or a the random selection of an existing slate of delegates from a set of candidate slates.

I am sure it is correct but I didn't get it completely....
Is a slate a list of delegates that you can vote for as a whole and using a set / list instead of voting for every single delegate safes resources? But that would contradict with

A slate is a selection of 101 delegates

because I dont necessarily have to vote for 101 delegates. I can just vote for one or two. Right?

FOR ALL NON NATIVE SPEAKERS THIS PROBABLY HELPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

Voting for everyone except one person would be loosely the same as giving that one person a negative vote in the previous system.

[santaclause102]

I didnt follow emskis thread... Trying to get it....

Is the following correct? I can vote for x delegates which will divide the voting power of my stake among the x delegates.

BM said

A slate is a selection of 101 delegates.
A random slate is a random selection of N delegates out of M  or a the random selection of an existing slate of delegates from a set of candidate slates.

I am sure it is correct but I didn't get it completely....
Is a slate a list of delegates that you can vote for as a whole and using a set / list instead of voting for every single delegate safes resources? But that would contradict with

A slate is a selection of 101 delegates

because I dont necessarily have to vote for 101 delegates. I can just vote for one or two. Right?

FOR ALL NON NATIVE SPEAKERS THIS PROBABLY HELPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

[muse-umum]

Sorry, I am an idiot. I still don't quite get it.  Is there anyone who can make a summary here ?

Something like this:

                                  How to vote for & against               Advantage                   Disadvantage
Approval Voting

Delegation

approval voting:
* vote by giving someone thumbs up, or not
* advantages: don't have to play whack-a-mole with bad delegates.
* disadvantages: harder to get minority representation

delegation:
* vote by giving someone thumbs up, thumbs down, or nothing
advantages/disadvantages opposite.

But why am I still able to vote against (set negative trust level ) ?  See welk1n-b *

Do trust level 10, 30, 40 make any difference ?

Code: [Select]

heyddryrun5 (unlocked) >>> wallet_list_accounts
NAME (* delegate)                  KEY                                                             REGISTERED            FAVORITE       TRUST LEVEL   
sometimes-naive *                  XTS5kppbLHPT6JV7aGGXQ3Nu4TvtR1u388uau6Yqv1J9Ni64rnFnc           2014-06-24T02:12:30   NO             10       
too-simple *                       XTS5Def6N9bsueAX2YnvQNKHzbphG1Qx9syKthF9BFFSZZT5EkS3x           2014-06-24T02:12:30   NO             40       
too-young *                        XTS6Kp6598CtJhDVauQwQKVLBZZ34o9W55CR2vhCNRezvKL2KHQtB           2014-06-24T02:12:00   NO             30       
welk1n-b *                         XTS5Q9zjvW6WKBhxYT6oY5qmbywbKv8N4K2HkL8XHYxx41dpDsndm           2014-06-24T03:26:00   NO             -10       

What's more,
Will I get notified in my wallet client if the delegate I vote for has done something evil ?

Can you please describe how we are going to kick the evil delegate out of the top 101 since we can't vote against ? 

Is it still a whack-a-mole game if the evil delegate owns a large amount of shares and can vote himself (another account) back ?

[donkeypong]

Sounds like a great way to start. Maybe as we go along, people can come up with their own 'playlists' of delegates or union-style ballot endorsement cards. "Click this button to vote for Jake's Slate" or "Purple Party Line Vote", etc. 

[toast]

Sorry, I am an idiot. I still don't quite get it.  Is there anyone who can make a summary here ?

Something like this:

                                  How to vote for & against               Advantage                   Disadvantage
Approval Voting

Delegation

approval voting:
* vote by giving someone thumbs up, or not
* advantages: don't have to play whack-a-mole with bad delegates.
* disadvantages: harder to get minority representation

delegation:
* vote by giving someone thumbs up, thumbs down, or nothing
advantages/disadvantages opposite.

[muse-umum]

Sorry, I am an idiot. I still don't quite get it.  Is there anyone who can make a summary here ?

Something like this:

                                  How to vote for & against               Advantage                   Disadvantage
Approval Voting

Delegation

[Agent86]

The majority that votes for delegate A is a different majority than the one that votes for delegate B.  The majority shareholders that trust delegate C are again a totally separate subset of shareholder stake than those voting for delegates A & B.

Unless the majority that votes for A votes for A0->A101 in which case the minority is unrepresented.
Now the majority that votes for A can only vote for A0-A33... a different majority would have to vote for B34->B66 and yet a 3rd majority would have to vote for C66 to C100.

Someone with 33% of the shares is guaranteed 33% of the delegates under this approach.   Under the full slate approach having 33% may not be enough to get 33% of the delegates... but then again having 49% may not be enough to get even a single delegate. 

Perhaps it doesn't matter in the end.

As a shareholder I would never vote for A0-A33. You'd probably need a good reason why people should vote for more than one delegate you control.  I don't think there are big colluding majorities; it's too hard to coordinate getting 50% + of the stake together to collude without the rest of the shareholders finding out.  It wouldn't achieve anything anyway.  I expect most people will support a broad mix of delegates who they think have shown commitment to the community and seem like they are not part of same entity/cooperating.

If a shareholder is in the unlikely position of not  trusting or liking any chosen delegates (they don't feel represented) this shareholder is probably one that will sell to someone who likes what he sees.   And that's best for everyone.

What's worse anyway: someone with 33% without representation or having active delegates that 66% oppose?  I prefer the former (there's likely a good reason why 66% oppose and I don't have a problem with majority rule)

[bytemaster]

The majority that votes for delegate A is a different majority than the one that votes for delegate B.  The majority shareholders that trust delegate C are again a totally separate subset of shareholder stake than those voting for delegates A & B.

Unless the majority that votes for A votes for A0->A101 in which case the minority is unrepresented.
Now the majority that votes for A can only vote for A0-A33... a different majority would have to vote for B34->B66 and yet a 3rd majority would have to vote for C66 to C100.

Someone with 33% of the shares is guaranteed 33% of the delegates under this approach.   Under the full slate approach having 33% may not be enough to get 33% of the delegates... but then again having 49% may not be enough to get even a single delegate. 

Perhaps it doesn't matter in the end.