On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:04:13 -0800 Bart Ingles wrote:
Forest Simmons wrote:
What if we tossed two coins, and gave the win to B if they both came
up heads, to C if they both came up tails, and to A otherwise.
Looks like time for those too out of it to understand simple odds to go
back in their
On Dec 27, 2004, at 4:26 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:
As Jobst recently pointed out, non-deterministic methods have not been
adequately studied or promoted, considereing their potential
contribution to fairness and to strategy free voting.
They may be mathematically fair, but I find them
As Jobst recently pointed out, non-deterministic methods have not been
adequately studied or promoted, considereing their potential contribution
to fairness and to strategy free voting.
Consider, for example the following cycle of three:
34 ABC
33 BCA
33 CAB
Though most methods would give
Forest Simmons wrote:
As Jobst recently pointed out, non-deterministic methods have
not been
adequately studied or promoted, considereing their potential
contribution
to fairness and to strategy free voting.
Consider, for example the following cycle of three:
34 ABC
33 BCA
Forest Simmons wrote:
What if we tossed two coins, and gave the win to B if they both came up
heads, to C if they both came up tails, and to A otherwise.
Wouldn't a random cycle-breaker provide strong incentive for a sure
loser in a cycle-free election to try to create a cycle?
Bart
I get dizzy on his one but, if a majority of voters prefer B, why do they
not simply vote B, and quit talking about strategy?
Dave Ketchum
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 15:38:36 +0200 Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Markus mentioned Pattanaiks work on strategy-proofness, and I read the
book in the meantime. This and
