> On Apr 2, 2015, at 6:13 PM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Gruno <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... > >> - Set the random seed to actually be random now. Setting it to 0 is just >> bad juju and can be reverse engineered to place candidates in such a way >> that a tie will always favor candidate X. >> > > I disagree with this change. This now means you/me could run the report and > get different results. That is even worse than the extreme likelihood > somebody could rig the vote.
Some implementations ask the person running the s/w whether to have the person chosen "at random" or for the person to pick someone to eliminate. > > You could simply look at the result as: the algorithm chose it that way. It > happens to use a pseudorandom sequence to make the choice. That decision is > *part* of how the algorithm operates, rather than using a true random > number. > >> ... > > Cheers, > -g
