[EM] Range Voting vs Condorcet (Greg Nisbet)

[Jobst Heitzig]

Dear Raph,

you answered to me:
>> a) FAWRB is not a random but a very specific and quite sophisticated
>> method. It only uses a certain amount of chance, just as many things in
>> our life do. Chance should not be mixed up with arbitrariness. Used in a
>> rational way, FAWRB will usually elect good compromise options with near
>> certainty, not leading to significant amounts of randomness.
> 
> I know, but it does have randomness.

I includes a chance process just as many sophisticated things in our 
life do. It does not include arbitrariness. It will most often lead to a 
certain winner (one option getting 100% winning probability).

Here's some evidence that the perceptions that chance processes are evil 
and that deterministic processes cannot lead to random results is wrong:

1. Some time ago I challenged you all by asking for a method which 
elects C with certainty in the 55/45-example. The only methods which 
achieved this seeminly simple goal included a chance process.

2. Every majoritarian method leads to a severe kind of randomness when 
there's no Condorcet Winner! This is because in all these situations 
there is no group strategy equilibrium, that is, whatever the winner is, 
there will be some majority having both the incentive and the means to 
change the winner to an option they like better. So, where the strategic 
process will end is mostly random since it cannot settle on an equilibrium.

Yours, Jobst