On May 9, 2008, at 1:09 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Usually I consider Random Ballot a "benchmark" method for
this very reason: the "default" winning probability of a candidate
should equal the proportion of the voter who favour her. Any deviances
from this default distribution should be justified somehow, for
example
by an increase in some measure of "social utility".
I commented this point also in my reply to raphfrk. Random ballot is
a perfect "benchmark" for many elections. But there are also
elections that should be "benchmarked" against different methods /
criteria. Sometimes the intention is to elect a candidate that is
e.g. considered to be a good compromise, and one could e.g.
intentionally try to avoid electing extremists.
It would be good to always make it clear what kind of election method
one is looking for. Both probability based and "deterministic"
methods are needed.
Juho
___________________________________________________________
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
