Hi, --- En date de : Dim 19.10.08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > That being said, I think the most promising area of > development here is > > based around the concept of a "conditional > vote" that came up a few > > threads ago. The idea here being that individual > ballots should "react" > > to a particular candidate being kicked out of the > hopeful group or > > something like that.
Really lots of methods can be defined in that way. You're practically describing IRV for example. A difficult thing is deciding on a good criterion for a candidate to be eliminated. And if you don't eliminate candidates outright, you have a problem in that in some cases there will never naturally be stability: There are always some ballots that want to adjust how they are being counted. > DSV systems would do something like that. You'd submit > an honest ballot, > and then the system would strategize maximally (not just > for you, but > for all others), first on the honest information, then on > the previous > round's strategic information, until the result > settles. That would be a > sort of automatic conditional ballot. The idea would be > that the system > or computer would be so good at strategizing on your behalf > (for all > voters), that it wouldn't pay off to try to manually > use strategy. Many methods are designed with this goal of course. I could think of this as the mentality behind the Condorcet criterion. Kevin Venzke __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicités http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
