More Standards

David Marsay djmarsay at
Wed Nov 4 05:52:51 PST 1998

Blake Cretney wrote (directly to me):
> >><SNIP>
> >Example: 2 voters with rankings ABC, CBA. I would say B was a 
> >reasonable compromise. Presumably you would insist on a draw.
> According to what I've been advocating, this should be a draw.  The
> winner should be chosen by picking one of the two ballots at random
> and using its first choice, so either A or C will win with a 50%
> chance of each.  The random ballot tie-breaker is used to obey

In my example above I could understand a 3-way draw, but not a 
two-way between A and C. This seems more intuitive than most technical 
criteria, like GITC. 

In a UK scenario this situation would mostly likely arise when the 
candidates represent a 1-D spectrum of views, with B the compromise. 
In this case B is justifiable. A and C are not.

I think most criteria will have special cases where they are 
counter-intuitive. We need to focus on 'typical' cases, which seems 
to depend on where you live.

Sorry, but apparently I have to do this. :-(
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer
and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of
any other person or official body.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list