[EM] DMC, Ties & Eppley's RVH

[Eric Gorr]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> 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.

Indeed.

>>
>> 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.

Of course not.

It was merely demonstrating how the RVH would be constructed in that 
case. I agree, there would be no need to actually make use of it.