Resoluteness? (was Re: [EM] river, ROACC (terminolgy, again))

[Adam Haas Tarr]

>James G-A wrote:
>> seppley at alumni.caltech.edu writes:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>   50%:  A > B
>>>   50%:  B > A
>> 
>> 	Actually, I might prefer voting methods which report 
>> a tie in this situation, and do not chose between A 
>> and B. Hence there is no random element.
>
>I don't believe the public will be willing to discard
>the resoluteness (a.k.a. "single-winner") criterion.

There could be an alternate method of election (e.g. House of Representatives) 
in the case of a tie.

Ay any rate, I think it's safe to say that anonymity, neutrality, resoluteness, 
and determinism are mutually exclusive.  You can have any three of the four, I 
guess.