[EM] DMC, Ties & Eppley's RVH

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Fri Sep 2 13:21:01 PDT 2005

On  Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:44:40 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:

> Eric Gorr wrote:
>> 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.
> For a concrete example, let's say that you have a genuine three way tie, 
> with 100 voters total:
> 50:a>c>b
> 50:b>c>a
> 50 voters prefer a>c
> 50 voters prefer a>b
> 50 voters prefer c>b
> 50 voters prefer c>a
> 50 voters prefer b>c
> 50 voters prefer b>a
> Now, simply selecting one of these candidates at random, provides 'c' 
> with a ~33% to win the election. Does this make sense? Not 
> really...after all, 'c' was not the first place choice of _any_ voter. 
> The RVH recognizes this and would provide 'c' with absolutely no 
> opportunity to win. It provides 'a' and 'b' a 50% chance to win.
Not at all clear that that is proper resolution:

      Looking at A/B, A/C, and B/C, each pair has ties.
      Looking closer, no one hates C - perhaps reason enough to elect C, 
since A and B each inspire dislike/hate.

Not ready for such detailed analysis, I like the 33% odds, and do not need 
RVH to implement them.
  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