Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:25 -0800
From: Russ Paielli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EM] About random election methods
Russ wrote to Andrew:
Andrew,
I think voters will reject any method that isn't deterministic. Barring
actual numerical ties, why should the selection of the winne
Hello,
As I wrote recently, I want to elect from the CDTT set by Random
Ballot. (The CDTT set, again, contains every candidate who has a
majority-strength beatpath to everyone who has such a beatpath back
to them.)
I think the randomness can be justified here by noting that the CDTT
effectively d
Russ Paielli wrote:
I think voters will reject any method that isn't deterministic.
They don't currently do so, so why would they do so in the future?
It is not completely unexpected for a tie to occur and, when that
happens under Plurality (First-Past-The-Post), the winner has generally
been det
Dear Russ!
You wrote:
> I think voters will reject any method that isn't deterministic. Barring
> actual numerical ties, why should the selection of the winner depend in
> any way on some random event?
Well, in my opinion election methods should be democratic, and that is not
the same as "maj
Andrew,
I think voters will reject any method that isn't deterministic. Barring
actual numerical ties, why should the selection of the winner depend in
any way on some random event? Yes, randomness may help thwart strategy,
but so what? Of course strategy is useless if we toss dice to determine
Andrew Myers wrote:
A lot of Condorcet election methods use randomness to elect
a winner, but in a way that I think voters will find unsatisfactory.
They simply produce a winner as part of a complex algorithm that
uses randomness at various points. MAM is an example of such
an algorithm.
Actually,
A lot of Condorcet election methods use randomness to elect
a winner, but in a way that I think voters will find unsatisfactory.
They simply produce a winner as part of a complex algorithm that
uses randomness at various points. MAM is an example of such
an algorithm. A voter might reasonably wonde
