RE: Initial Voting Procedures

On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 08:23, terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com wrote:
 
> If multiple people acquire same number of votes for position 5, then clearly 
> "the community" feels
> they are equally the right person.
Almost but not quite. The voting procedure so far described does not
fully capture the voters preferences. So that if you did a revote after
culling out the more obvious losers then the people who voted for those
losers might be able to reallocate their otherwise potentially wasted
votes to resolve the conflict.

However a revote might still result in a deadlock(either the same or
another), in that case then we really are getting way too nit picky and
should just flip a coin.

BTW how likely is this anyway. 
http://www.spf_vote.idimo.com/candidates_declarations.html lists 11
candidates. How many eligible voters are there?  BTW I'm not eligible.

Just for thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
demonstrates the impossibility of designing rules for social decision
making that obey a number of 'reasonable' criteria. However with a
narrower definition of "irrelevant alternatives" which excludes those
candidates in the Smith set, some
http://electionmethods.org/Condorcet.htm methods meet all the criteria.

The method you plan on using seems very close to approval voting.
http://electionmethods.org/approved.htm talks about that. In the test
voting I voted for only four candidates. It doesn't seem to allow six or
more choices.

An iterative/feedback approach that allowed upto
 (can_cnt<12) ? 6 : ((can_cnt > 15) ? 10 : (can_cnt-5))  
choices where can_cnt is the number of candidates in the race might be
interesting.
The feedback would come from allowing the people to alter their votes as
the contest was happening based on who was currently winning. That
method might actually be more prone to ties though. I think releasing
the actual totals or even the order of the winners, might produce bad
results though. Needs more thought.

> Non random selection produces bias and tie vote concerns.
If the bias measures voter intent then that is arguable good.

-- 
http://dmoz.org/profiles/pollei.html
http://sourceforge.net/users/stephen_pollei/
http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=2455954990164098214
http://stephen_pollei.home.comcast.net/
GPG Key fingerprint = EF6F 1486 EC27 B5E7 E6E1  3C01 910F 6BB5 4A7D 9677

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features 
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part