Resoluteness? (was Re: [EM] river, ROACC (terminolgy, again))
seppley at alumni.caltech.edu
Sat Aug 28 16:13:27 PDT 2004
Adam T wrote:
> Steve E wrote:
>> James G-A wrote:
>>> Steve E wrote:
>>>> 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.
I call the combination one method. Yes, it's
a "compound" method, but that's beside the point.
> At 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.
Right, it's another impossibility theorem. And I believe
that in public elections the public will require (and
have traditionally required) anonymity, neutrality
More information about the Election-Methods