[EM] DMC, Ties & Eppley's RVH
eric at ericgorr.net
Fri Sep 2 13:27:10 PDT 2005
Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> Let's say that we have the following set of ballots:
> 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.
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.
More information about the Election-Methods