I think we should charge Paul with throwing mud.
Juho has created a couple examples packaged as basic tie elections, with
one extra vote added in that gives the odd voter full control as to winner
under wv rules.
Paul notes - as a big deal - that by not starting with a tie, the results
would be different.
Does not matter that such a count in a real election would smell rotten.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:54:03 +0300 Juho Laatu wrote:
Hello Paul,
On Jul 25, 2005, at 01:42, Paul Kislanko wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote in part:
(P.S. Number of "1000 supporter parties" could be also higher
than two,
and number of candidates in each party could be higher than two, and
the results/problems would stay the same.)
I'd be very careful with generalizations like this one. The
three-alternative case is qualitatively different from the two-alternative
case. The example itself depends upon their being an even number of voters
so the split can result in a tie. With the same 2000 voters and a third
candidate, you can't have a tie since 2000 is not 0 mod 3.
Ok, I'll try to be more careful with my definitions. I'll give an
example to clarify what I was thinking. I the attached example one vote
seems to be able to pick any winner - in this case the last vote picks B.
1000: A>B>C>D
1000: E>F>G
1000: H>I
1000: J
1: B>F
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
