[EM] river, ROACC (terminolgy, again)

Paul Kislanko kislanko at airmail.net
Sat Aug 28 15:13:51 PDT 2004

Steve Eppley wrote:

Warren S wrote:
> To avoid this ambiguity, I suggest we use a different 
> term for describing algorithms that use chance, 
> such as "randomized". 

Aren't all the voting methods we've been promoting 
both anonymous and neutral?  Doesn't that mean
none of them are entirely non-random?


If "none of them are non-random" then all of them are random. That's
definitely not true. And the there is no connection between "anonymous" and
"neutral" (whatever that means). 

There's only a few of the ones discussed on the list that have a random
component. The suggestion that "none are non-random" is the same as "all are
random". It would suffice to demonstrate the "randomness" of any Condercet
method, or of IRV, to support the claim that "all methods we discuss are

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list