Tie-breakers

[Lowell Bruce Anderson]

On Oct 27, 12:41pm, Steve Eppley wrote:
> Subject: Re: Tie-breakers
>
> Bruce, would you care to suggest the definition(s) appropriate to
> the Electoral College reform issue, so that we could discuss "voting 
> methods" of the form EC//M (where M is some single-winner method).
> ...
> EC is a function which takes as input not only the candidates and
> ballots in the state(s) where it's being used, but also the electoral
> college results in the other states.  Does this additional input mean
> that new terms are desirable in your notation definitions document? 
> 
> ---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu) 
>-- End of excerpt from Steve Eppley

On Nov 3, 10:33pm, Steve Eppley wrote:
> Subject: Re: Tie-breakers
> Bruce A wrote:
> -snip-
> >EC should be as you defined it whenever there are one or more
> >candidates that are mathematically capable of winning as you
> >described.  However, if there are no candidates that are capable of
> >winning in this manner, then EC should select all of the candidates
> >running in the election as its winners.  This allows all of the
> >electoral votes of the reformed states to go to their choice
> >according to M.
> 
> But that complicates the definition of the function, and for what
> gain?  The electoral college is deadlocked and moot no matter how the
> reformed states award their delegates.  So why do you say "should"?
> ---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)
> 
>-- End of excerpt from Steve Eppley

In my "definitions document" a Single-winner Ranked-ballot Voting Method
must always result in at least one winner.  This is a standard definitional 
criterion, and I do not choose to relax it.  Without my suggested change,
EC can result in no winners.  With my suggested change, EC will always 
produce at least one winner.  Thus, with my change, if M is a Single-winner 
Ranked-ballot Voting Method that must always result in at least one winner, 
so is EC//M.

Bruce