2011/7/26 Andy Jennings <[email protected]> > Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> Suggestions: >>>>> - When a candidate is elected and you need to discard ballots, you >>>>> could specify a more detailed preference order: >>>>> 1. Ballots which delegated to that candidate >>>>> 2. Ballots which bullet voted that candidate and didn't delegate >>>>> 3. Ballots which approved two candidates >>>>> 4. Ballots which approved three candidates >>>>> 5. Ballots which approved four candidates >>>>> 6. And so on. >>>>> This eliminates ballots first which approve fewer candidates. You may >>>>> still have to select randomly within these tiers, but it gives an >>>>> incentive >>>>> for people to approve more candidates, which helps the method work better. >>>>> Right? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, up to a point. The problem would be if people approved a "no-hope" >>>> candidate, just to puff up the number of approvals on their ballot. This is >>>> a form of "Woodall free riding", and it could lead to DH3-type pathologies >>>> in the worst case. I'd rather not go there. >>>> >>> >>> Good point. Although if there do happen to be any voters who bullet >>> voted for that candidate but didn't delegate to him, then you should >>> definitely eliminate those first (even before the delegated ones, I think). >>> Once that candidate is elected, ballots which don't approve any other >>> candidates are pretty useless, so you might as well get rid of them. >>> >>> But after that, I can see why you would be reluctant to incentivize >>> approving more candidates. >>> >>> >> Here's an idea. When you have elected a candidate, choose which of their >> ballots survive, not which are eliminated; and do so in proportion to the >> number of remaining hopeful candidates approved per ballot. This naturally >> eliminates bullet votes. >> > > You're still choosing randomly, right? So the probability of surviving > will be proportional to the number of remaining hopeful candidates left on > that ballot. > > I like it. (I'm still kind of wary of non-deterministic methods, though. > Not for myself, actually, but for selling them to the public.) > > - Andy >
Actually, you can do this either randomly, or deterministically, or indeed randomly-until-you-get-the-same-result-twice, or any hybrid like that. It should amount to the same thing; I'd be happy with whichever variant in this regard was most popular. (ie, which turns people off less, "complex" math or non-determinism or some compromise?) JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
