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

[Steve Eppley]

Adam T wrote:
> Steve E wrote:
>> James G-A wrote:
>>> Steve E wrote:
-snip-
>>>>   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 
and resoluteness.

--Steve