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

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:56:01 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
>>     In simulation there is value, and sometimes excessive temptation, in 
>>tailoring test cases to favor a desired result.
> 
> 
> Maybe try an open simulator.  Make the "electorate engine" pluggable
> so experimenters can try different voting behaviours.  That should
> protect against bias.
> 
I was proposing a poll, so bias is expectable.  Only whatever behavior he 
poll takers offer together.

I was proposing multiple formulas for cycles, all to be done to let users 
compare formulas.
> 
>>     In vivo, as I proposed, you get all kinds of test cases exposed to 
>>multiple formulas, but not necessarily a good variety of test cases.
> 
> 
> It's nice to go live, but the up front costs will be high.  

The many current polls imply costs can be tolerable.
> 
> It's risky too because you have to follow the crowd.  Sites will offer
> alternative voting methods and electors will vote with their feet.
> There's no telling where they'll be attracted, or whether it'll jive
> with the test plans.
> 
My plans are for them to see Condorcet as a desirable method, and back one 
of the best cycle formulas for use with it.
-- 
  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.