On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > If the circled name on the randomly drawn ballot has a rating above the > "random > favorite rating expectation," on any ballot (including the one in play), then > another ballot is drawn, and the indicated favorite of the second ballot is > elected. > > Otherwise, the proposed consensus candidate whose name was circled on the > first > drawn ballot is elected.
Effectively, a random voter proposes a consensus candidate. The random ballot probabilities are determined and each voter is given the option to vote Yes/No to the consensus candidate. Unless all prefer the consensus candidate to the expected utility of the random ballot, the random ballot method is used. It is clear that honest range is the best plan as it doesn't affect anything else. Likewise, you might as well pick your favourite as favourite. The consensus candidate is different. It is inherently strategic. There is the possibility for group "chicken" effects. For example, a party could say that all of their supporters are going to rate candidate X at minimum, so there is no point in nominating that candidate. This could cause the other partys' supporters to disregard that candidate as a potential consensus candidate. Also, I wonder if it might be worth having a rule that allows additional consensus attempts. For example, if 10% refuse, then the other 90% would be given the option of choosing the consensus candidate. The 2 choices in that case would be Option 1) Full random ballot Option 2) 90% chance of consensus candidate 10% chance of random ballot (only the ballots outside the 90% are considered) This would probably break the strategic "purity" of the single stage method. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
