[EM] DMC, Ties & Eppley's RVH

[Dave Ketchum]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:33:05 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:

> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:26:32 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:08:08 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
>>>> Most of the places for which RVH 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, what is difficult to understand about the RVH?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What does it do
> 
> 
> Resolve a tie.
> 
>> why 
> 
> 
> Because a tie needs to be resolved.
> 
>> and when?
> 
> 
> Whenever a method needs to resolve a tie.
> 
>>> How would you describe the procedure the RVH uses to select the 
>>> strict, random ordering of the candidates?
>>>
>>> Why would the average person not be able to understand the selection 
>>> of a series of ballots at random?
>>>
>> Since I do not understand why bother,
> 
> 
> Ah, I didn't realize you didn't know how the RVH worked.


Since I have not deciphered why bother, I have not done a detailed analysis.

> 
>> I start wondering what you mean by "random".
> 
> 
> Let's say that we have the following set of ballots:
> 
> 60:a>b>c
> 20:b>c>a
> 20:c>a>b


Since I see a winning via majority vote, I see no tie to need breaking.

> 
> There is a 60% chance the tie breaking order would be: a>b>c
> There is a 20% chance the tie breaking order would be: b>c>a
> There is a 20% chance the tie breaking order would be: c>a>b


Explaining why I ever would declare b or c as winners based on the above 
vote, I would not let such a tie breaker near such a collection of ballots.

> 
> If a ballot does not fully define a strict ordering of the candidates, 
> the orderings of the candidates are kept and another ballot is selected. 
> Preferences from this new ballot, which do not conflict with previously 
> kept preferences are kept. Keep going until a strict ordering of the 
> candidates is found.
> 
> Is there anything you do not understand?
> 
> If so, please provide your own set of ballots and try to work through it 
> yourself. Please describe in detail what you think should happen at each 
> step.
> 
> The primary reason why the RVH is better then simply selecting a tied 
> candidate at random is because it provides a statistical edge to those 
> candidates who are preferred by a majority of voters.
> 

-- 
  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.