On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Eric Gorr wrote:
> At 12:08 PM -0700 6/20/03, Forest Simmons wrote:>If the voters know that ties are going to result in the speaker of the...snip...... to arrange a tie.
They can still try to arrange a tie with Eppley's method as well, forcing a random choice to be made.
True, though a random tie breaker would seem more impartial than a systematic one.
But a decision had already been made on how to handle ties.
A voting system should not, imho, circumvent something that had already been decided upon - probably by a vote.
Now, if they wanted to determine a tie via random choice, that is certainly an option, but only if the tie was going to be reported first.
I guess I didn't read Eppley close enough to understand that he wanted to hide the fact of a tie from the voters.
Perhaps he could clarify the matter better than I.
If your method is the same as Eppley's MAM in all other respects, then perhaps we could say that you are one of those geniuses that independently (re)discovered a great method:-)
First, it's not my method - I just implemented it. It came from Mike Ossipoff. As to it's origins...it's probably buried in an archive somewhere. He was calling it Ranked Pairs - Deterministic #1(wv)
-- == Eric Gorr ========= http://www.ericgorr.net ========= ICQ:9293199 === "Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu == Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... === ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
