[EM] DMC, Ties & Eppley's RVH

[Eric Gorr]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:22:21 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
> 
>> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry...I am having trouble understanding what you are attempting to 
>> say  here other then you do not like the RVH.
> 
> 
> 
> RVH could be fine for those in EM that understood it, and most anyplace 
> for decisions that were not critical for those affected.

What's difficult to understand?

It is simply randomly selected a ballot, acquiring the preferences from 
that ballot which are undefined, until a strict ordering for every 
candidate is determined. Of course, if after processing all of the 
ballots, there are unordered candidates, they are simply appended to the 
end of the list in a random fashion.





-- 
== Eric Gorr =============================== http://www.ericgorr.net ===
"The more you study, the more you know. The more you know, the more you
forget. The more you forget, the less you know. So, why study?" - ???
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===