Random choice. (was Re: Accuracy and repeatability...)

From: Edward Cherlin <cherlin_at_pacbell_dot_net>
Date: Thu Feb 03 2005 - 18:35:07 CST

On Wednesday 02 February 2005 18:32, charlie strauss wrote:
> At some point any election is a tie in the sense that both
> candidates are equally qualified and desired in the eyes of
> the voters. That is a large fraction voted for each so by
> definition they are qualified regradless of other measures of
> their intellect and ability. Thus selecting one of them by a
> game of chance is not an affront to democracy.
>
> Since this would eliminate almost all challenges to an
> election

I doubt that. What if a candidate misses the random choice cutoff
by 10 votes?

> and elminate any need to recount on suffieintly
> accurate machines

Never. "Any measurable error rate is too high." Bill Godbout

> it solves a heck of a lot of issues in
> voting and promotes public confidence that no swindle took
> place.

ROTFLOL. Look, if you want random choices, how about going the
whole way to the old Athenian system of choosing from all
citizens by lot? It doesn't satisfy any of the modern criteria
for fairness and so on, but Athens did better than most for
several hundred years. (In case you can't tell, this is not a
serious suggestion.)

-- 
Edward Cherlin
Generalist & activist--Linux, languages, literacy and more
"A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it!"
--Alice in Wonderland
http://cherlin.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Sun Feb 27 17:17:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 27 2005 - 17:17:13 CST