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

[Adam Haas Tarr]

>>> 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.

Who breaks ties in the House?  Is it the speaker of the House?  At any rate, the 
election of the president (or at least, its third stage, after popular vote and 
electoral vote) could be seen as violating anonymity, as oppose to determinism.