Jonathan suggested eliminating in a chain and Raphfrk suggested that this could
be automated for large
groups.
I like the chain idea from one point of view: (as Raphfrk commented) the
extremes would end up
eliminating each other.
Here's a variation that I like slightly better:
While there are two or more voters remaining ...
pick a voter at random from these remaining voters
and allow this voter to eliminate one of the other voters
until all of the remaining voters agree who the winner should be.
[In this version, the same voter could be chosen as the eliminator more than
once.]
It has the advantage (over the chain method) of a smaller percentage of the
decisions being made by
voters on the fringe, and (over my previous proposal) of keeping the voters
near the center to help form
the unanimous consensus.
This method could also be automated in various ways, including Raphfrk's
suggestion.
Forest
> From: Jonathan Lundell
> Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Another Lottery Method for the Record
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> On Jun 28, 2008, at 3:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In small groups:
> >
> > A voter is chosen at random.
> >
> > This voter picks another voter to be eliminated, along with himself.
> >
> > One of the remaining voters is chosen at random, etc.
> >
> > If the number of voters is odd, the last voter left decides
> the
> > election.
> >
> > If the number of voters is even, a coin is flipped to
> determine
> > which of the last two voters decides the
> > election.
>
> Nice.
>
> Alternatively, only the first voter is chosen at random, and the
>
> elimination proceeds in a chain.
>
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
