Tiebreaker Need

[Mike Ositoff]

To the statement that all pairwise methods need a random
tiebreaker, I reply that all methods of any kind need one,
because, whatever the method counts, it's possible for 2 or
more canddidates to have the same score.

Unlikely in public elections, but some systems provide for
drawing lots, letting the mayor break the tie etc. Fine, we'd
leave that wording in when we propose our reform. The tie
wording could remain unchanged. 

Sure, in small committee elections, a tiebreaker is needed.

A simple & decisive one is Repeated Plurality: 

Pick the Plurality winner if there is one. If there isn't, then
, from each ranking, give a vote to that ranking's 2nd choice.
If that doesn't break the tie, use 3rd choices, etc.

If that doesn't work, have a rule that the chairperson breaks
the tie or that a randomizing device is used. For randomization,
I like drawing a name from a bag, or flipping a coin repeatedly
to get a random binary number, after assigning numbers from 1 to
N to the candidates.

Mike