3 ms·
"Another amusing example occurred in an article by Charles Seif titled Not Every Vote Counts that appeared on the op-ed page of the New York Times on 4 December
by MaysonL 7y ago
"Another amusing example occurred in an article by Charles Seif titled Not Every Vote Counts that appeared on the op-ed page of the New York Times on 4 December 2008. Seif proposed that elections be decided by a coin toss if the voting is very close, thereby avoiding litiginous disputes over the exact vote count."
Interestingly enough, A.A. does this, where "very close" is deemed to be "less than a 2/3 majority". (Although rather than a coin flip, a name is drawn at random, usually from a hat).
- dredmorbius 7y agoElection by lot is a thing. https://web.archive.org/web/20160320090358/https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-randomly https://web.archive.org/web/20160320090358/https://aeon.co/e...
- earthboundkid 7y agoA jury is essentially election by lot. We should use juries for more oversight-type things.
- simonh 7y agoThen you need a very precisely defined threshold of votes, if the person with the most votes has one vote less than that threshold then we use a coin toss. So now we have the same problem choosing that precise threshold and candidates will litigate over that instead. You've not really gained very much over using a strict majority of votes.
- mannykannot 7y agoHere's a slightly more complicated variant: if the vote is close (for any reasonable definition of 'close') the outcome is decided by a random process, but one that does not always have a 50-50 outcome; instead it is biased, in proportion to the difference in votes, towards the side with the higher count. Only if the counts are equal are the probabilities equal, and if the difference in counts is close to the threshold for invoking this mechanism, it will almost certainly choose the side with the higher count. For example, a series of coin flips, with each win being added to the toss-winner's vote count, until one has reached a value one greater than the higher vote count. This seems to be a natural extension of the sudden-death tie-breaker. Because the counts are discrete, I do not think there is any sorites paradox here, and so long as more than a few votes were cast, there should be a reasonable definition of 'close'. This would never work in practice, as the side with the larger count will always regard it as unfair, but could perfectly rational participants find this acceptable?
- simonh 7y agoI don't think so, because there is no way to decide what constitutes perfect rationality.
- mannykannot 7y agoWell, I certainly left myself open to that way of avoiding the issue.
- simonh 7y agoI’m really not trying to avoid it. I can see your point and it’s a worthwhile thread to pull on, I’m just a bit skeptical. Elections are inherently fractious issues. Yes there is some random input into the outcome, which makes the process contentious, but I don’t think the solution to that is more randomness.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoRead a story where President was chosen at random from all registered Voters.