Juho wrote: > The problem is that these two sets of votes are identical:? > 51: X1>X2>X3>X4?
> 49: X4>X3>X2>X1 Ahh, good point. There needs to be some system for providing an incentive for people to give their honest ratings.? A random system with trading seems like a reasonable solution. If a majority has a 100% chance of getting their candidate elected, then there is no incentive for them to trade.? If the voters are 100% strategic, they will know this. OTOH, a support of a majority should be better than support of a minority. Another option is to have it so that the election can fail unless >X% of the voters agree with the result. X might be 2/3.? If there is no winner, the previous holder stays in office, or the office remains vacant. Another option is that a candidate who only wins with 51% support has reduced powers or maybe a reduced term. Optimal utility via trade requires that voters have something to trade, and fractions of a win probability seems to be quite a reasonable solution. Ofc, another problem is how to handle X:100, all the rest 0 voters.? Raphfrk -------------------- Interesting site "what if anyone could modify the laws" www.wikocracy.com ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info