[Election-Methods] Another Lottery Method for the Record

[fsimmons at pcc.edu]

Jonathan suggested eliminating in a chain and Raphfrk suggested that this could be automated for large 
groups.

I like the chain idea from one point of view: (as Raphfrk commented) the extremes would end up 
eliminating each other.

Here's a variation that I like slightly better:

While there are two or more voters remaining ...

    pick a voter at random from these remaining  voters
    
    and allow this voter to eliminate one of the other voters

    until all of the remaining voters agree who the winner should be.

[In this version, the same voter could be chosen as the eliminator more than once.]

It has the advantage (over the chain method) of a smaller percentage of the decisions being made by 
voters on the fringe, and (over my previous proposal) of keeping the voters near the center to help form 
the unanimous consensus.

This method could also be automated in various ways, including Raphfrk's suggestion.

Forest


> From: Jonathan Lundell 
> Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Another Lottery Method for the Record
> To: fsimmons at pcc.edu
> Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Message-ID: <31E34F9E-9E79-4CDD-B386-12FB35AB0C26 at pobox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> 
> On Jun 28, 2008, at 3:17 PM, fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:
> 
> > In small groups:
> >
> > A voter is chosen at random.
> >
> > This voter picks another voter to be eliminated, along with himself.
> >
> > One of the remaining voters is chosen at random, etc.
> >
> > If the number of voters is odd, the last voter left decides 
> the 
> > election.
> >
> > If the number of voters is even, a coin is flipped to 
> determine 
> > which of the last two voters decides the
> > election.
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Alternatively, only the first voter is chosen at random, and the 
> 
> elimination proceeds in a chain.
>