[EM] DMC, Ties & Eppley's RVH

[Eric Gorr]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 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.

Sorry...I have no idea how what you have said relates directly to the RVH.