[EM] Condorcet Voting

Eric Gorr ericgorr at cox.net
Tue Jan 7 14:19:46 PST 2003

At 1:24 PM -0800 1/7/03, Alex Small wrote:
>Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>       I find random ballots acceptable for resolving true ties,
>>  assuming the authority conducting the election agrees.  I do not find
>>  them acceptable as an excuse for not doing what is possible with
>>  Condorcet vote counts.
>Even in the case of a true tie, or a race so incredibly close that the
>authorities cannot declare a winner with any reasonable certainty (e.g. a
>margin of less than 100 votes out of a few million, or something like
>that), I see no need for random selection.
>[district method removed]

There is only one problem. A tie is still a potential outcome. One 
can come up with any number of methods for breaking a tie, but at the 
end of the day, one could still be left with a tie to deal with. If 
one attempts to use multiple methods for breaking a tie, there would 
be the additional problem of determining how to order those methods, 
especially since the ordering would almost certainly effect who the 
winner was.

So, one will eventually be either left with random choice or be in a 
state of decision paralysis.

So, why bother? Well, there would be emotional reasons to bother, but 
I do not find such reasons compelling in this case.

If one is already using the mathematically best method for finding a 
winner and there is a tie, I can see no compelling reason not to 
choose randomly.

For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list