[Election-Methods] method designchallenge+new method AMP

[fsimmons at pcc.edu]

> Jobst wrote:
> > ? 45: A 100 > C 90 > B,D 0?
> 
> > ? 44: B 100 > C 90 > A,D 0?
> 
> > ? 11: D 100 > A,B,C 0 
> 

What if the tentative increases involved more general incremental changes to the lotteries? 

Suppose we start with the (45, 44, 0, 11)%  lottery and try averaging in the lottery  (0,0,2,1)/3 with respective weights of 100 and three in order to arrive at the proposed improvement

(45, 44, 2, 12)/103 .

The respective factions' expectations would go from

(.45, .44, .11), to  approximately  (.454, .445, .117)

100 percent of the voters would find this to be a slight improvement.

Which incremental lotteries should be tried?

Why not  just take suggestions from the candidates, parties, voters, etc.  Then keep using the ones that work out best until none of them give any additional improvement at the required consensus level.


Forest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20080509/6440617c/attachment-0003.htm>