tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post356304281567214878..comments2019-10-14T12:11:35.608-04:00Comments on Computational Complexity: Ken Arrow and Oscars VotingLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-29274260553166535542017-05-07T21:04:00.534-04:002017-05-07T21:04:00.534-04:00I think STV leads to a most acceptable result, i.e...I think STV leads to a most acceptable result, i.e. a result where largest number of people can live with. An easier way to explain it to layman is to say we have n rounds of voting and each time we will eliminate the candidate with the least vote. That is much easier to understand than ranking and transferring votes. <br /><br />>Maybe the Oscars should just let Emma Watson choose the winner.<br /><br />Never!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-77907870719773179532017-02-27T11:40:02.947-05:002017-02-27T11:40:02.947-05:00Lance, I blame you for what happened at the Oscars...Lance, I blame you for what happened at the Oscars. You confused everyone, so the presenters announced the wrong Best Picture; Moonlight was the winner, not La La Land.jozsef solymosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09214325531172875025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-63644096694326331582017-02-27T11:31:13.951-05:002017-02-27T11:31:13.951-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09214325531172875025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-29865920634427150872017-02-23T15:04:06.958-05:002017-02-23T15:04:06.958-05:00Note that Arrow's theorem assumes that the vot...Note that Arrow's theorem assumes that the voting mechanism is deterministic. <br /><br />An alternative, which satisfies both fairness properties but somehow feels "less dictatorial", would be <br /><br />"Everybody's ballot is placed in a pile, from which one person's is chosen uniformly at random. The Oscar goes to whoever that person's first choice is. Kevin C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08760942816103747988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-92018350770839961832017-02-23T11:43:52.305-05:002017-02-23T11:43:52.305-05:00Seems not necessarily true. For a given movie F, t...Seems not necessarily true. For a given movie F, there could be voter(s) who gave F a rank j < i but one or more of their movies ranked k < j are still in contention and therefore their ranking of F at j has not yet become relevant.space2001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-53699173641214290962017-02-23T10:07:02.402-05:002017-02-23T10:07:02.402-05:00"After determining which film garnered the le..."After determining which film garnered the least number of votes, PWC employees take that title out of contention and look to see which movie each of those voters selected as their second favorite. That redistribution process continues until there are only two films remaining."<br /><br />I suppose in the i-th step, the sum of all votes ranking a film at positions <=i is considered?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com