[EM] Problem solved (for pure rank ballots): ICC & AFB incompatible (essentially)

[Dave Ketchum]

My initial reaction to your words:  If not about public elections, then 
why bother?

Public elections are such an important part of the purpose of this group 
that anything that does not apply to them should be labeled accordingly.

Sure seemed like Warren intended it to be inclusive except, to me his 
discussion methods do not quite fit.

Certainly theory and other types of elections are worthy topics - provided 
their applicability is understood.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:29:49 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> Dave, you have totally misunderstood what's going on here. This is 
> not about public elections, it is about an election method, in the 
> abstract. This election has three candidates and three voters. It's a 
> *test* election, to show properties of ranked methods.
> 
> At 11:01 PM 1/25/2007, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
>>Assuming this is a public election and, therefore, the votes are secret.
>>
> Irrelevant.
> 
...

> 
>>  These being
>>identical triplets, I claim their response to a rerun call could be to
>>repeat the same votes - or to each make the SAME modification to their
>>votes - letting the tie continue until the authorities amended THEIR
>>responses.
>>
> No rerun. One of the assumptions, I think, is that the method is 
> deterministic. That is, it *will* choose a winner, but random choice 
> is only allowed if there is a tie (or more than one tie).


But now we are back to:  responding to a tie by chance should assume equal 
probability of comparable results.

> 
> This is abstract voting method stuff. There may be some significance 
> for practical elections, but the fact is that there is a much simpler 
> proof that ranked methods suffer from a limitation that Range does 
> not. And that may *still* not "prove" that Range is better, for there 
> is more to an election method, when it is applied, than its 
> theoretical compliance with election criteria -- which is what this is about.
> 
> Normally, I wouldn't be following this. I just happened to notice the 
> problem with how ICC was being considered.

-- 
  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.