[EM]

[Hugo Harth]

Open question : Looking for a fair order of n candidates.

Many of the methods in this EM-forum discuss finding a winner out of
n candidates and as a by-product produce an order of these candidates.

Question : If the focus switches from finding a winner to finding an
order (and with an intermediate  situation where the order of the
first candidates is more important), are the best methods for finding a 
single winner still the best methods or is there better ?

Rationale behind this question :
Political parties have to propose an ordered list at elections.
Here in my country [Belgium], candidates in the top places are more likely 
to be elected because besides votes in favor for candidate(s), votes in 
favor of a whole list are possible.
Candidates on the upper part of the list tend to profit more from this.
Hence, top places are much desired.
Last few years, the last place (often occupied by a retiring politician)
is also much desired, people tend to sympathise with the "list-pusher".

I want therefore to broaden my question.
Is it possible to design a mechanism or a game that leads to a good
(that is : generally accepted and peaceable) solution.
There must be people around who have thought about the same problem.

A few thoughts :

- The committee that sets up the list may contain candidates and 
non-candidates.
Would that be a point to grant non-candidates more votes or power?
It suggests also that such a mechanism should not be easily manipulable.

- One might argue that some candidates deserve a better chance to be elected
  (perhaps by giving them more voting power).
Some reasons :
= expected good result because of
  a) good result at previous elections
  b) well known personality (TV , sports, ...)
= merit and excellence
  a) long standing membership
  b) prestige, "voice that carries weight" , ...

One line of thought of mine is to let the election committee start with the 
point which people with certain (objective) properties
(say non-candidate or %votes of total voters over a minimum threshold) 
deserve more votes.
Or more direct, start with allocating votes directly to the committee 
members (!?)
There is a mechanism available for that : the Hylland-Zeckhauser point 
voting procedure
[ see Public Choice II , by Dennis C. Mueller, Cambridge University Press ,
  ISBN 0-521-37952-0]
Once the number of votes is allocated, proceed with an election

A last remark. I know this often is highly emotional. I am coining to 
proceed over
several weeks time and hold at least two elections. I know people tend to 
punish others
when they have had a frustrating experience.

I would like to read your suggestions !


Yours sincerely,

Hugo Harth
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.