Hello folks,
over the last months I have again and again tried to find a solution to
a seemingly simple problem:
The Goal
-
Find a group decision method which will elect C with near certainty in
the following situation:
- There are three options A,B,C
- There are 51 voters who prefer A to
How about using STV or some other proportional method to select the
n-1 worst candidates and then elect the remaining one?
Juho
On Apr 28, 2008, at 20:58 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> over the last months I have again and again tried to find a
> solution to
> a seemingly simple
I wanted to consider this afresh.
At 01:58 PM 4/28/2008, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Hello folks,
over the last months I have again and again tried to find a solution to
a seemingly simple problem:
The Goal
-
Find a group decision method which will elect C with near certainty in
the following
Dear Juho,
you wrote:
> One observation on clone independence and electing a centrist
> candidate using rankings only and when one of the "extremists" has
> majority.
...
> It is thus impossible for the algorithm in this case and
> with this information (rankings only) to satisfy both requirements
Dear Raphfrk,
you wrote
> 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.
I am glad that I am no longer alone with this opinion...
> If a majority has a 100% chance of getting th
> you wrote
> > 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.
>
> Yes, although some Range Voting supporters try hard to convince us of
> the opposite, it seems.
W
One approach to clones is to allow the voters to indicate them. One
approach is to use the preference strengths. Instead of voting
A1>A2>C>B the voter could vote A1>A2>>C>>B, which indicates that the
voter in some sense considers A1 and A2 to be clones from his/her
point of view.
(Btw, al
On May 9, 2008, at 0:56 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:
For A1,A2 to be considered clones, the ratings would have to be
something like
51: A1 100 > A2 99 > C 55 > B 0
49: B 100 > C 55 > A1 1 > A2 0
Could be also e.g.
A > C 99 > B 0
and after inserting the clones
A1 100 > A2 99 > C 98 > B 0
There are
On May 9, 2008, at 1:09 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Usually I consider Random Ballot a "benchmark" method for
this very reason: the "default" winning probability of a candidate
should equal the proportion of the voter who favour her. Any deviances
from this default distribution should be justified so
Dear Raphfrk
you wrote:
> One issue with random processes is that they don't work well for a
> legislature. A majority would just keep asking that the vote be
> repeated until they win it.
> Saying that a re-vote cannot occur unless the situation changes would
> require that a definition of a ch
On May 9, 2008, at 10:46 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Raphfrk
you wrote:
One issue with random processes is that they don't work well for a
legislature. A majority would just keep asking that the vote be
repeated until they win it.
Saying that a re-vote cannot occur unless the situation changes
Dear Juho,
you wrote:
> Yes, but as I see it the reasons are different. In a typical non-
> deterministic method like random ballot I think it is the intention
> to give all candidates with some support also some probability of
> becoming elected.
Not at all! At least in those non-deterministic
On May 9, 2008, at 20:27 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Juho,
you wrote:
Yes, but as I see it the reasons are different. In a typical non-
deterministic method like random ballot I think it is the intention
to give all candidates with some support also some probability of
becoming elected.
Not
13 matches
Mail list logo
