On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:08:08 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
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.
Most of the places for which EVH claims value cannot benefit without
voters accepting it as suitable - give them a black box without content
they can understand with reasonable effort and they properly choke.
For a true tie resolution is needed, but RVH complexity makes simpler
alternatives appropriate (anything that makes a truly random choice is
good enough for this).
--
[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
