Hi Jobst,
I'm impressed. I didn't think you could define a coherent B>A>C>B situation, but it looks like you did:
On Jul 26, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
1. Would I prefer the situation
(i) "A and B tied on top, A elected" or
(ii) "A and B tied on top, B elected".
2. Would I prefer the situation
(iii) "B and C tied on top, B elected" or
(iv) "B and C tied on top, C elected".
3. Would I prefer the situation
(v) "C and A tied on top, C elected" or
(vi) "C and A tied on top, A elected".
I think the key point you make is that, in fact, the two different 'tiebreaking' votes *are* in fact taking place under different scenarios, even if its at the same time. Rather like a runoff.
To be fair, I think such situations are relatively rare, and I personally wouldn't want to impose that added complexity on voters for what I consider a relatively small amount of expressive power. But, I do think it is a valid model, and that "choice functions" could be considered an interesting superset of "ranked ballots."
-- Ernie P.
---------------------------------
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. <DrErnie at RadicalCentrism.org>
RadicalCentrism.org is an anti-partisan think tank near Sacramento, California, dedicated to developing and promoting the ideals of Reality, Character, Community and Humility as expressed in our Radical Centrist Manifesto: Ground Rules of Civil Society <http://RadicalCentrism.org/manifesto.html>
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
