When choosing between random dictator and maximal lottery, are there good options to compromise between these extremes? Eg, suppose that I want a 75% majority to win 95% of the time.
The first thing that comes to mind is a % chance of each, but that doesn’t seem especially elegant.
Oh, at first I was interpreting voting block as set of people with the same full preference profile. Obviously, since you are modifying RD, it should just be people with the same first choice, so my point doesn’t matter.
Unlike RD and ML, your proposal is not clone invarient.
For example, randomly sample N voters from the electorate, and run ML taking account only of those voters. Fails Condorcet, like RD, but it gives the behavior I specified. Politically infeasible, of course. And I’m not really sure I buy the argument-from-war for RD.
When choosing between random dictator and maximal lottery, are there good options to compromise between these extremes? Eg, suppose that I want a 75% majority to win 95% of the time.
The first thing that comes to mind is a % chance of each, but that doesn’t seem especially elegant.
Something like squaring the size of each voting bloc before doing a weighted random selection? This gives a 90% chance for a 75% majority to win.
I don’t like this because irrelevant alternatives can split a voting block, and have a large effect.
Oh, at first I was interpreting voting block as set of people with the same full preference profile. Obviously, since you are modifying RD, it should just be people with the same first choice, so my point doesn’t matter.
Unlike RD and ML, your proposal is not clone invarient.
For example, randomly sample N voters from the electorate, and run ML taking account only of those voters. Fails Condorcet, like RD, but it gives the behavior I specified. Politically infeasible, of course. And I’m not really sure I buy the argument-from-war for RD.