Re:
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 13:42:22 -0700
> From: "Blake Cretney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Tiebreaker Need
FYI:
A. Gibbard Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A general result,
Econometrica 47, 1973
Gibbard discusses randomly choosing a tied option versus randomly
choosing a ballot to break the tie. The former rewards 'rich
parties', in that cloning a candidate increases the chances of one of
the clones being picked.
An alternative would be to eliminate or duplicate a ballot and re-run
the base method (e.g., a variant of Condorcet). This could change the
result completely by changing the result of some pair-wise tie break
(as in Tideman/Shulze). I'd go with Gibbard.
Suggested new criterion: any tie breaking method should not give a
result outside the original tie!
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry folks, but apparently I have to do this. :-(
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer
and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of
any other person or official body.
