[EM] Chris: 3 Uniform factions, indecisive example

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 7 21:09:45 PDT 2005


You said:

Take this often-discussed example:
49: A
24: B
27: C>B

MMPO scores:  A52,  B49, C49.

The result is a tie between B and C.

I reply:

Yes, I was saying that when there are a few factions, each one voting 
exactly uniformly, as is necessarily the case in our examples, then MMPO can 
be indecisive. But what I also said is that, in a public election with 
thousands of voters, it's not going to be like that, and that indecisiveness 
won't happen.

You continue:

Which "one vote" would you change
(and how) to change this result into not a tie?

I reply:

I wouldn't change people's ballots. If I were in a committee in which that 
ballot-configuration occurred, I'd agree that it's a tie, rather than 
changing anyone's ballot. I personally don't have a problem with that tie. 
Maybe I'd suggest (in advance, of course) the use of Random Ballot for 
solving ties. If people insisted on using another rank-count to solve ties, 
I'd argue against any rank-count tiebreaker that would result in the loss of 
FBC compliance.

If it were a public election, then that wouldn't happen anyway. As I said, 
for obvious practical reasons, when writing examples, we specify a few 
factions, each of which votes perfectliy uniformly. Even the slightest 
deviiation from that uniformity would prevent that tie.

Mike Ossipoff

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list