[EM] D2MAC can be much more efficient than Range Voting

[Michael Poole]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes:

> At 04:58 PM 3/7/2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>>Randomness is not identical to noise.  Stochastic computing methods
>>use randomness to get "good" results (according to the method's
>>definition of good) -- in many cases, much faster than naive methods
>>reach comparable results.
>
> Gad, this is irritating. I gave examples of where randomness is useful
> as described, and "noise" is, quite clearly, not identical to
> "random." However, random number generators can use electrical noise
> as a seed, because some kinds of noise are random. Others
> aren't. Technically, noise means an undesired "signal," though the
> term "signal to noise ratio" is used. If my radio receiver is hissing
> at me because of thermal electrons, that hissing is pure noise, if it
> is garbled because of other radio signals interfering with the one I'm
> trying to receive, that is also noise.
>
> I'm using noise to mean data that is used by an election method that
> is not related to the goal of the election method, it is not designed
> to produce good results. If you want to distribute property by
> lottery, then the random number generation used is not noise, but it
> may come from a "noise source." However, if you want to maximize
> collective wealth by rewarding successful enterprise, using lotteries
> can be noise. Depends on what you are trying to do.

Any seriously designed election method will only use data that are
related to the method's goal.  For randomized methods, these data
include an entropy source.  I still do not understand your objections
to them.

I have a personal preference for deterministic methods, on the
untested hypothesis that society would be more accepting of
deterministic than randomized methods.  A large part of why I am
probing this is to see whether there is a more scientific objection to
randomized methods.

Michael Poole