Myself and my 8 housemates decided to make a fantasy football league this season. Like most leagues I have been in, deciding on a punishment for the losing team was very difficult. Different members of the league had very different opinions of what type of punishment they thought would be most appropriate for the winner of our Sacko Bowl. While the method we used to decide the punishment was not very democratic, it is interesting to think about what outcomes different voting procedures could have produced and which one is most desirable.
After debate, there were three options that had considerable support. A more extreme punishment(option A), a moderate punishment(option B), and a punishment that was only really supported by one member(option C). A majority rule was not suitable for this situation as there was no one option that would capture the majority of the votes. The two next potential options would be a Hare method(same as a runoff in this situation) and a Coomb method. Under the Hare method option A would have likely won as the option C voter would likely take option A second. Under the coombs system, it is very possible that option C could win as both option A and B had many voters who would rank them last. This outcome could occur whether the Coombs method described in Mueller was used or a Coombs method that is described here is used(there can be a difference). When looking at this situation, I believe that a system that doesn’t compel many people to do something they strongly oppose is wise. Although a Coombs method might elect an option that does not have a large enthusiastic following, I still think it could be an appropriate way to decide our choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment