Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:44:40 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
Eric Gorr wrote:
The primary reason why the RVH is better then simply selecting a tied
candidate at random is because it provides a statistical edge to
those candidates who are preferred by a majority of voters.
For a concrete example, let's say that you have a genuine three way
tie, with 100 voters total:
50:a>c>b
50:b>c>a
50 voters prefer a>c
50 voters prefer a>b
50 voters prefer c>b
50 voters prefer c>a
50 voters prefer b>c
50 voters prefer b>a
Now, simply selecting one of these candidates at random, provides 'c'
with a ~33% to win the election. Does this make sense? Not
really...after all, 'c' was not the first place choice of _any_ voter.
The RVH recognizes this and would provide 'c' with absolutely no
opportunity to win. It provides 'a' and 'b' a 50% chance to win.
Not at all clear that that is proper resolution:
Looking at A/B, A/C, and B/C, each pair has ties.
Looking closer, no one hates C - perhaps reason enough to elect C,
since A and B each inspire dislike/hate.
Not ready for such detailed analysis, I like the 33% odds, and do not
need RVH to implement them.
What if the party representating A or B decided to run candidate C?
Suddenly that party would have a 66% chance to win the election in this
example. Not a good thing.
--
== Eric Gorr =============================== http://www.ericgorr.net ===
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire,
a troublesome servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
