On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:56:01 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
In simulation there is value, and sometimes excessive temptation, in
tailoring test cases to favor a desired result.
Maybe try an open simulator. Make the "electorate engine" pluggable
so experimenters can try different voting behaviours. That should
protect against bias.
I was proposing a poll, so bias is expectable. Only whatever behavior he
poll takers offer together.
I was proposing multiple formulas for cycles, all to be done to let users
compare formulas.
In vivo, as I proposed, you get all kinds of test cases exposed to
multiple formulas, but not necessarily a good variety of test cases.
It's nice to go live, but the up front costs will be high.
The many current polls imply costs can be tolerable.
It's risky too because you have to follow the crowd. Sites will offer
alternative voting methods and electors will vote with their feet.
There's no telling where they'll be attracted, or whether it'll jive
with the test plans.
My plans are for them to see Condorcet as a desirable method, and back one
of the best cycle formulas for use with it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
