Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Sure, and in scenarios like that, perhaps the best thing to do is to flip a coin.

Instead of going to all the expense of flipping a coin, though, you could just take the person who seemed to get the most votes (after you've counted them all really hard to make sure you're within the margin of error). Just an arbitrary rule, no biggie.

perhaps the best thing to do is to flip a coin

Or have a runoff election, or have instant-runoff voting. Having elections determined by real or statistical coin-flips undermines the (important) story of self-rule.

You can't get rid of edge cases by moving the edge.

Yes you can. If there is a tie in the UK the result is chosen on a cut of the cards.


The candidates agree, and the winner and loser both accept the outcome, works for me.

I'm confused by your reply. The grandparent comment was saying "You should never flip a coin", the person you replied to said (roughly) "It's impossible to avoid all situations where you can't measure the winner, you have to either flip a coin or just take the person who happened to come out ahead in the vote count".

Your link to a place where they used a coin flip isn't disagreeing with him (nor really the grandparent, who wasn't claiming that you can't use a coinflip, but rather that you shouldn't use a coinflip).

Maybe not, but you can lessen the real-world impact of edge cases by moving the edge.

And if that is too close as well?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact