Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:22:21 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
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.
Sorry...I am having trouble understanding what you are attempting to
say here other then you do not like the RVH.
RVH could be fine for those in EM that understood it, and most anyplace
for decisions that were not critical for those affected.
What's difficult to understand?
It is simply randomly selected a ballot, acquiring the preferences from
that ballot which are undefined, until a strict ordering for every
candidate is determined. Of course, if after processing all of the
ballots, there are unordered candidates, they are simply appended to the
end of the list in a random fashion.
--
== Eric Gorr =============================== http://www.ericgorr.net ===
"The more you study, the more you know. The more you know, the more you
forget. The more you forget, the less you know. So, why study?" - ???
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
