On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's another problem. If you pick n ballots, with some probability more
> than one ballot is going to have the same first place candidate. This might
> be solvable by picking the first place candidate of the fir
Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A multiwinner analog of random
candidate would be vulnerable to cloning, and I don't think random ballot
(pick n ballots) would be proportional either.
Actually, pick n ballots would be proport
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A multiwinner analog of random
> candidate would be vulnerable to cloning, and I don't think random ballot
> (pick n ballots) would be proportional either.
Actually, pick n ballots would be proportional. If there
Greg Nisbet wrote:
For the record, I am against nondeterminism in single winner methods,
but that is another ball of wax that I want to keep separate.
Anyway, the single winner methods can be divided into a few basic types:
1) slow (these take O(candidates!) time. They are non-iterative)
2) fas
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
For the record, I am against nondeterminism in single winner methods,
but that is another ball of wax that I want to keep separate.
Anyway, the single winner methods can be divided into a few basic types:
1) slow (these take O(candidates!) time. They are non-iterative)
2) fast (these rely on iter
