On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:33:05 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:26:32 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:08:08 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
Most of the places for which RVH 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.
Again, what is difficult to understand about the RVH?
What does it do
Resolve a tie.
why
Because a tie needs to be resolved.
and when?
Whenever a method needs to resolve a tie.
How would you describe the procedure the RVH uses to select the
strict, random ordering of the candidates?
Why would the average person not be able to understand the selection
of a series of ballots at random?
Since I do not understand why bother,
Ah, I didn't realize you didn't know how the RVH worked.
Since I have not deciphered why bother, I have not done a detailed analysis.
I start wondering what you mean by "random".
Let's say that we have the following set of ballots:
60:a>b>c
20:b>c>a
20:c>a>b
Since I see a winning via majority vote, I see no tie to need breaking.
There is a 60% chance the tie breaking order would be: a>b>c
There is a 20% chance the tie breaking order would be: b>c>a
There is a 20% chance the tie breaking order would be: c>a>b
Explaining why I ever would declare b or c as winners based on the above
vote, I would not let such a tie breaker near such a collection of ballots.
If a ballot does not fully define a strict ordering of the candidates,
the orderings of the candidates are kept and another ballot is selected.
Preferences from this new ballot, which do not conflict with previously
kept preferences are kept. Keep going until a strict ordering of the
candidates is found.
Is there anything you do not understand?
If so, please provide your own set of ballots and try to work through it
yourself. Please describe in detail what you think should happen at each
step.
The primary reason why the RVH is better then simply selecting a tied
candidate at random is because it provides a statistical edge to those
candidates who are preferred by a majority of 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
