On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is unlikely that a nondeterminstic solution would be perfect, of course. > > However, I suspect that it can deliver at least some of the benefits > of group (1) without incurring factorial execution time. > > Any thoughts on the matter?
Another option is to allow the candidates to submit winning sets. Only those winning sets are then considered. The process would be: - voters cast their ballots - ballot info is published* - Each candidate submits a winning set within (say) 1-2 days - all candidate sets are considered and the winning set is declared the winner *This would have to be enough to work out the true winner This is deterministic (though it depends on both the ballots and the outcomes submitted by the candidates), but still allows the more open system to be used. Each candidate would submit the winning set with the highest score (or likely Condorcet winner) that has the candidate as a member. This means that it is very likely that the final outcome is similar to the true winner. It also allows unsecured computing power to be used to find a winner. There could be a "Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]" effort. Checking a result is likely to be much easier than finding the optimal. Mostly, though everyone will just agree on the winning set, it is only in edge cases that there is a dispute. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
