Difference between revisions of "Talk:Definite Majority Choice"

From Electowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(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 15:56, 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.