[EM] Approval vs. IRV

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:09:31 -0400 Bill Clark wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:03:28 -0700, Brian Olson <bolson at bolson.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think I'm allergic to the use of randomness in election methods, so I
>>don't plan on implementing such an option.
>>
> 
> The unique appealing feature of random methods is that they're the
> only ones that can be completely immune to the the "Tyranny of the
> Majority" problem.  If a particular political party consistently gets
> 10% of the vote, wouldn't it be nice if their candidates were elected
> 10% of the time?  Random methods are the only ones (that I know of, at
> least) capable of accomplishing that for single-seat elections --
> they're basically the single-seat "time-sharing" version of PR.
> 
> Random methods are nothing to be concerned about, they've been used in
> mathematical physics and other hard-sciences for quite some time (e.g.
> the Monte-Carlo method).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method
> 
> -Bill Clark


Agreed the hard-sciences often talk of randomness - AND - often mean a 
carefully designed pattern that will produce the variety of numbers that 
suit their needs.

HOWEVER, the voters properly demand a truthful statement based on what 
they have said (something usually also demanded in the hard-sciences - who 
can want outputs appropriate to their random inputs).

Anyway, is it acceptable to elect a lesbian or imbecile 10% of the time if 
such results would please 10% of the voters?


-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.