[EM] Impartial culture with truncation?

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Jul 14, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:

> As part of tinkering with my simulator, I have found that for  
> certain methods, it's having problems finding disproofs of criterion  
> compliance. As I think the reason may at least in part be with my  
> ballot generator (which uses impartial culture plus a hack for  
> truncation and equal-rank), I've been considering an extension to  
> that concept.
>
> Consider a random ordering generator where, for n candidates, it  
> picks randomly among all possible orderings involving choosing k out  
> of n candidates, where k <= n, and each ordering being equally  
> likely. For instance, for n = 3, the orderings are:
>
> A
> B
> C
> A > B
> A > C
> B > A
> B > C
> C > A
> C > B
> A > B > C
> A > C > B
> B > A > C
> B > C > A
> C > A > B
> C > B > A
>
> and each of these would have equal probability of being picked.  
> Because there are 6 (2,3) orderings and 6 (3,3) orderings and only  
> three (1,3) orderings, it will favor longer preferences.
>
> My question is, then, how would I go about making a ballot generator  
> that picks orderings according to that particular extension of  
> impartial culture?

why need every permutation of ranking be put on the ballot (where the  
voter simply checks off one)?  why not just list the candidates (in a  
random order) and then, beside each name, would be a row of ovals to  
fill in (with 1, 2, 3...)?  i have to admit that i am a partisan for  
optical scan voting machines, but the same question would apply for  
other ballot technology.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."