I agree with Ossipoff. That is, Hay voting is really a parameterized class of methods (parameter P). When P=1/2 you get the original method. When P-->0+ you get a log-based method. When P-->1- you get random ballot.
There are reasons to believe P=1- is actually the best member of the family. If so, then Hay voting is actually worse as a voting method, than random ballot. Which is well known to be a horribly bad voting method. So Hay voting is not a good voting method. However, from the point of view of a theoretician, it has some neat properties. Namely, strategic vote = honest vote. Actually ranodm ballot already had that property, but Hay goes further in that it actually causes the voter to reveal her honest utility values. Also, Hay with P=1/2 can guarantee that the candidate with the greatest summed utility for all of society is the one with the largest chance of being elected. I cannot think of any other voting method that can say that (aside from, say, Clarke-Tideman-Tullock but it in some sense isn't really a "voting method" since you pay money as your vote). Warren D Smith http://rangevoting.org ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
