Dave Ketchum wrote:
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.
Indeed.
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.
Of course not.
It was merely demonstrating how the RVH would be constructed in that
case. I agree, there would be no need to actually make use of it.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
