terry mcintyre wrote: > > Here's another approach: "Range Voting" > > > http://rangevoting.org/rangeVborda.html > That particular article doesn't come across as being very scholarly. I would much prefer to see a good quality paper on it.
Take this with a grain of salt, but here is my own ad-hoc system (could be bad): 1. Each voter has 1 vote. 2. He can distribute that vote any way he prefers among the candidates by breaking it up into fractions. This system might be ok with un-biased voters such as computers who do not attempt to vote strategically. I don't really know, it might have serious weaknesses. It could be tuned by giving some agents more voting power than others if that works out to be better decision making. - Don > The author of this particular page makes much of the pitfalls of strategic > voting, which should not matter to a set of emotionally disinterested, > independent agent routines. But range voting has one further advantage over > borda voting: expressiveness. If an agent is given 99 votes to cast, the > agent can say that A is a really fine move, worth 45 points; B and C and D > are worth 15 points each, and I have no opinion on the remaining choices" -- > or whatever reflects the state of the board as understood by this particular > agent. This expressiveness may help or hinder; hard to say. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
