Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:17 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
> 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.
>
Let's try for all the possibilities:
Manipulation of who gets to vote, and whether the count gets based on all
those votes - IMPORTANT topic to work on, but not an EM topic beyond
picking a method simple enough to be understood.
Strategic manipulation by voters - methods should be chosen to discourage
being able to do this successfully.
Vote count did not indicate a true tie. Then you accept what the count
says, even if it says far from a tie - hard to usefully blame strategies
at this point.
True tie - so all you need is chance, which does not require a computer.
Introducing a program for these rare instances is counterproductive, as
I said above.
Sorry...I have no idea how what you have said relates directly to the RVH.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
