I gave some preference to smaller global health organizations this time around. The main value of my vote, I think, lies in signalling—at least for most of the ballot. The big GHW players are great, but their room for more funding and established evidentiary bases can make it difficult for smaller or newer organizations.
You could make a similar argument about small animal-welfare orgs. But past voting results reflect more votes for those orgs, and so I adjudge the marginal value of adding to that signal to be lower.
I feel a bit confused by this strategy. The normal idea of voting is to express your preference, such that the outcome reflects what the majority prefers.
If people treat it rather as an opportunity to communicate to others, that seems likely to distort the outcome. In regular political elections I’m ok with that, but in this context where voters are voting altruistically, I’m less sure.
I’m also confused because the act of writing here is a signal, and probably a clearer one! Could you not have done that and voted for who you genuinely think should be ‘elected’?
I see no perceptible risk of distortion here because the organizations at the top of my ballot are not going to win, and I know this. The absence of an effect on the outcome is why the main value of my ballot is signaling. But for that effect, spending the time to rank most orgs would have had no real purpose. (I’ll know who the five or six orgs with an actual chance of winning are as voting progresses; it is the ranking between those organizations that has an actual effect on the outcome.)
As far as voting vs. posting, people may look at the election outcomes as a summary measure of preferences without taking the time to read every comment.
Also, my description may have made my votes look more tactical than they are. I do intend to donate to my top four choices; I genuinely think they should be elected!
I gave some preference to smaller global health organizations this time around. The main value of my vote, I think, lies in signalling—at least for most of the ballot. The big GHW players are great, but their room for more funding and established evidentiary bases can make it difficult for smaller or newer organizations.
You could make a similar argument about small animal-welfare orgs. But past voting results reflect more votes for those orgs, and so I adjudge the marginal value of adding to that signal to be lower.
I feel a bit confused by this strategy. The normal idea of voting is to express your preference, such that the outcome reflects what the majority prefers.
If people treat it rather as an opportunity to communicate to others, that seems likely to distort the outcome. In regular political elections I’m ok with that, but in this context where voters are voting altruistically, I’m less sure.
I’m also confused because the act of writing here is a signal, and probably a clearer one! Could you not have done that and voted for who you genuinely think should be ‘elected’?
I see no perceptible risk of distortion here because the organizations at the top of my ballot are not going to win, and I know this. The absence of an effect on the outcome is why the main value of my ballot is signaling. But for that effect, spending the time to rank most orgs would have had no real purpose. (I’ll know who the five or six orgs with an actual chance of winning are as voting progresses; it is the ranking between those organizations that has an actual effect on the outcome.)
As far as voting vs. posting, people may look at the election outcomes as a summary measure of preferences without taking the time to read every comment.
Also, my description may have made my votes look more tactical than they are. I do intend to donate to my top four choices; I genuinely think they should be elected!