[EM] Maximal Lotteries
Chris Benham
cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au
Mon Jun 23 17:21:58 PDT 2025
I don't know what the "maximal lotteries method" is, and I guess that is
true of other members of this list. But just going by its name I doubt
that it would appeal to me.
Is the Condorcet "winner principle" something different from the
Condorcet criterion? Because that is a binary pass-or-fail thing.
Chris Benham
On 24/06/2025 7:44 am, Daniel Kirslis via Election-Methods wrote:
> For those of you who believe in the Condorcet winner criterion, is
> there anyone who doesn't agree that the maximal lotteries method is
> the theoretically soundest Condorcet method?
>
> Amongst the Condorcet methods, it seems to me that maximal lotteries
> is clearly the best, at least in principle (that is to say, if we
> ignore more practical concerns about ease of administration and
> popular understanding). All deterministic Condorcet methods fail the
> participation criterion. Therefore, a non-deterministic method is the
> way to go, and the question becomes: "How shall we assign
> probabilities amongst the Smith set?" I cannot imagine a more elegant
> and fair-minded way of doing so than the maximal lotteries method.
>
> Is there anyone out there who understands the maximal lotteries method
> but still thinks that there exists another method that better
> satisfies the Condorcet winner principle? If so, why?
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list