[EM] DMC, Ties & Eppley's RVH

[Dave Ketchum]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:08:08 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:

> 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.


Most of the places for which EVH claims value cannot benefit without 
voters accepting it as suitable - give them a black box without content 
they can understand with reasonable effort and they properly choke.

For a true tie resolution is needed, but RVH complexity makes simpler 
alternatives appropriate (anything that makes a truly random choice is 
good enough for this).
-- 
  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.