2011/8/4 <fsimm...@pcc.edu> > Of course DSC and DAC are the same when rankings are complete. I was only > going to use it to determine the first player, and with amalgamated factions > (almost surely) the rankings would be complete. >
Yes, understood. I on the other hand was speaking of using this within SODA itself, not within your SODA-inspired method. In SODA, tied candidate preferences are legal. I'd call the resulting method SODA-DAC. Plain SODA still uses the order based on current approval total, for simplicity. The results are equivalent for up to 3 candidates, and generally speaking as long as the CW makes a strong initial showing (goes first, or goes second of 4, or ....) > > Of course there are many variations of this DSV idea [e.g. we could use > chiastic approval to pick the first player], but the main contribution of > SODA is the idea of sequential determination of the approval cutoffs. That > eliminates the need for mixed (i.e. probabilistic) strategies. In other > words, it makes the DSV method deterministic instead of stochastic. > Again, understood. > I think a deterministic DSV method is easier to sell than a stochastic > one, even though personally I would be happy with "strategy A" applied to > the ballots one by one in some random order. In other words, the approval > cutoff on the current ballot is next to the current approval winner on the > side of the approval runnerup. If there is no CW, then the winner depends > on the random order of the ballot processing. The public might have a hard > time with that fact. > I agree. In particular, even I might have a hard time, if there weren't at least a deterministic pseudorandom number generator with a pre-declared seed. Even then, this process would be much more difficult to audit / recount than a deterministic one. So I agree that the player-order idea for making things deterministic is helpful. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info