OnTue, 30 Aug 2005 14:45:58 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Definite_Majority_Choice
When it comes to the handling of ties, what objections would there be to
using Eppley's Random Voter Hierarchy (RVH -
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/MAM%20procedure%20definition.htm)?
It seems likely that injecting some possible randomness into an
otherwise deterministic method would reduce the potential for strategic
manipulation.
Furthermore, it would make the complete explanation of DMC far similar
then having to explain the six stages after which one still may(?) end
up with an unresolved tie and no predefined way to resolve it.
I do not like Eppley, for sorting out an understandable description of
what it does is too much pain for the possible good. Sure, it does math
and decides who won, but that level is not enough.
I DO LIKE the method setting its own answer on everything except what it
declares to be true ties. True that some can desire reruns, but near and
true ties should happen only when multiple candidates are equally liked
and voters should accept that.
As to true ties, public tossing of coins is understandable and should be
acceptable.
As to strategy, the method should not encourage such, nor should voters
have access to supporting information (actually, access by all to all
possible information can be a defense, for much of strategy is based on
players knowing more than their victims).
--
[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
