Tiebreaker Need

David Marsay djmarsay at dera.gov.uk
Thu Sep 3 08:33:47 PDT 1998


> Date:          Wed, 26 Aug 1998 13:42:22 -0700
> From:          "Blake Cretney" <bcretney at my-dejanews.com>
> Subject:       Re: Tiebreaker Need

A. Gibbard Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A general result,
Econometrica 47, 1973

Gibbard discusses randomly choosing a tied option versus randomly 
choosing a ballot to break the tie. The former rewards 'rich 
parties', in that cloning a candidate increases the chances of one of 
the clones being picked.

An alternative would be to eliminate or duplicate a ballot and re-run 
the base method (e.g., a variant of Condorcet). This could change the 
result completely by changing the result of some pair-wise tie break 
(as in Tideman/Shulze). I'd go with Gibbard.

Suggested new criterion: any tie breaking method should not give a 
result outside the original tie!

Sorry folks, 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