On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:09:31 -0400 Bill Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:03:28 -0700, Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I'm allergic to the use of randomness in election methods, so I don't plan on implementing such an option.
The unique appealing feature of random methods is that they're the only ones that can be completely immune to the the "Tyranny of the Majority" problem. If a particular political party consistently gets 10% of the vote, wouldn't it be nice if their candidates were elected 10% of the time? Random methods are the only ones (that I know of, at least) capable of accomplishing that for single-seat elections -- they're basically the single-seat "time-sharing" version of PR.
Random methods are nothing to be concerned about, they've been used in mathematical physics and other hard-sciences for quite some time (e.g. the Monte-Carlo method).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method
-Bill Clark
Agreed the hard-sciences often talk of randomness - AND - often mean a carefully designed pattern that will produce the variety of numbers that suit their needs.
HOWEVER, the voters properly demand a truthful statement based on what they have said (something usually also demanded in the hard-sciences - who can want outputs appropriate to their random inputs).
Anyway, is it acceptable to elect a lesbian or imbecile 10% of the time if such results would please 10% of the voters?
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
