[EM] DMC, Ties & Eppley's RVH

[Dave Ketchum]

OnTue, 30 Aug 2005 14:45:58 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:

> http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Definite_Majority_Choice
> 
> When it comes to the handling of ties, what objections would there be to 
> using Eppley's Random Voter Hierarchy (RVH - 
> http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/MAM%20procedure%20definition.htm)?
> 
> 
> It seems likely that injecting some possible randomness into an 
> otherwise deterministic method would reduce the potential for strategic 
> manipulation.
> 
> Furthermore, it would make the complete explanation of DMC far similar 
> then having to explain the six stages after which one still may(?) end 
> up with an unresolved tie and no predefined way to resolve it.
> 
I do not like Eppley, for sorting out an understandable description of 

what it does is too much pain for the possible good.  Sure, it does math 

and decides who won, but that level is not enough.


I DO LIKE the method setting its own answer on everything except what it 
declares to be true ties.  True that some can desire reruns, but near and 
true ties should happen only when multiple candidates are equally liked 
and voters should accept that.

As to true ties, public tossing of coins is understandable and should be 
acceptable.

As to strategy, the method should not encourage such, nor should voters 
have access to supporting information (actually, access by all to all 
possible information can be a defense, for much of strategy is based on 
players knowing more than their victims).
-- 
  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.