[EM] DMC, Ties & Eppley's RVH

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Thu Sep 1 10:47:14 PDT 2005

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:17 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:

 > 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.
Let's try for all the possibilities:

Manipulation of who gets to vote, and whether the count gets based on all
those votes - IMPORTANT topic to work on, but not an EM topic beyond
picking a method simple enough to be understood.

Strategic manipulation by voters - methods should be chosen to discourage
being able to do this successfully.

Vote count did not indicate a true tie.  Then you accept what the count
says, even if it says far from a tie - hard to usefully blame strategies
at this point.

True tie - so all you need is chance, which does not require a computer.
   Introducing a program for these rare instances is counterproductive, as
I said above.
   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.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list