[EM] the 'who' and the 'what' - trying again

[Michael Allan]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Cycles happen, and perhaps should be reported, but are NOT a reason for he 
> system to do anything special beyond normal analysis and reporting.
>
> Of course reporting should e based on total voting, thus updated as soon as 
> practical after any vote.  Big point is that cycles happen and nothing gets 
> done to encourage or discourage their existence.

Assume the ideal Condorcet resolution is no resolution at all.  If
reality intervenes and you would have a resolution, the closest to the
ideal is a hands-off method.

If it is a hands-off method, it ought to be transparent to other
hands-off methods.  No need to restrict to a single one.  Allow
multiple parallel resolutions and approach even closer to the ideal
(Condorcet, phantom, and test bed or proving grounds) of no resolution
at all.

In terms of technical supports, Votorola's core is a continuous
medium.  It never reports a winner at all.  So it meets the ideal.
But the design allows for parallel analyses and massaging of the raw
data stream.  So external sites can report their own resolutions in
more-or-less real time.  (But this might not be implemented till the
production release, depending on need.)

In terms of my own interest, I want a rough understanding of how
external signals will cross with other events in the real world, and
influence the ideal (core, Condorcet, phantom).  This discussion has
me thinking that cascade decision rings are not a resolution mechanism
after all, but some kind of defence formation (wagon circle) or
protective response against (at least in part) external pressures.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/