At 1:24 PM -0800 1/7/03, Alex Small wrote:
There is only one problem. A tie is still a potential outcome. One can come up with any number of methods for breaking a tie, but at the end of the day, one could still be left with a tie to deal with. If one attempts to use multiple methods for breaking a tie, there would be the additional problem of determining how to order those methods, especially since the ordering would almost certainly effect who the winner was.Dave Ketchum wrote:I find random ballots acceptable for resolving true ties, assuming the authority conducting the election agrees. I do not find them acceptable as an excuse for not doing what is possible with Condorcet vote counts.Even in the case of a true tie, or a race so incredibly close that the authorities cannot declare a winner with any reasonable certainty (e.g. a margin of less than 100 votes out of a few million, or something like that), I see no need for random selection.[district method removed]
So, one will eventually be either left with random choice or be in a state of decision paralysis.
So, why bother? Well, there would be emotional reasons to bother, but I do not find such reasons compelling in this case.
If one is already using the mathematically best method for finding a winner and there is a tie, I can see no compelling reason not to choose randomly.
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
