Talk:Definite Majority Choice: Difference between revisions

From electowiki
Content added Content deleted
imported>Heitzig-j
No edit summary
 
imported>Araucaria
(So ties have to be discussed)
Line 7: Line 7:
</pre>
</pre>
Here no "majority agrees" that any candidate should be eliminated!
Here no "majority agrees" that any candidate should be eliminated!

== So ties have to be discussed ==

I think I sent a suggestion in private email, but here it is again.

The initial page I put up was intended as a public elections proposal. So I wasn't thinking about ties.

In DMC, we eliminate candidates that lose pairwise matches to higher-approved candidates. Call the set of remaining candidates P.

If there is a tie, or if in a public election there is a near-tie (difference of, say, 0.01%), what about forming the superset P*, the union of all P's resulting from all possible reversed close races.

Then choose the winner by [[Random Ballot]].

Revision as of 23:56, 18 March 2005

Please let us avoid the term "majority" when there need not be any majority involved! Look at this:

1 A>>B>C
1 B>>C>A
1 C>>A>B
3 A=B=C

Here no "majority agrees" that any candidate should be eliminated!

So ties have to be discussed

I think I sent a suggestion in private email, but here it is again.

The initial page I put up was intended as a public elections proposal. So I wasn't thinking about ties.

In DMC, we eliminate candidates that lose pairwise matches to higher-approved candidates. Call the set of remaining candidates P.

If there is a tie, or if in a public election there is a near-tie (difference of, say, 0.01%), what about forming the superset P*, the union of all P's resulting from all possible reversed close races.

Then choose the winner by Random Ballot.