On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Stéphane Rouillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The tie-breaker is clone-dependent because the method is clone dependent. > Just take a clone-independent method! The tie-breaker is not the problem.
Approval is clone-independent, but the ties wouldn't be. However, I do accept your point about the just taking the count that resulted in the tie would mean that everyone is equal, as it is a tie. Also, if there was a tie, then odds are that there is only 2 people involved, so it doesn't really matter about clones. My suggestion went back to all the ballots to simulate a random ballot process, so the number of ballots which gives each member of the tie a win, is not necessarily equal. > > You are free to define the index as you which, prior from knowing the > results! > > Reversing digits of the turnout is a bad idea because it is highly not > equiprobable. If I know between 7100 and 7700 people are going to vote, I > want the 1 as index in order to win tie-breaks... XXX7 = 2 . YYY3 + 1. I seem your point, if the first digit is 7, then the results would be 2 in tie: 1 3 in tie: all possible 4 in tie: 1 or 3 5 in tie: 2 Hmm, maybe the 2 most significant digits should be excluded, but that gives less bits. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
