Abstract:
The invention herein is novel and practical in providing a method for introducing mathematical logic in games, show-games and lottery, upon which election may be made between two choices that survive elimination. The mathematical logic is simply the product of a division of group of choices into small and large groups of choices, with the reasonable expectation that the sought-after choice is in the large group. After random elimination of all the choices, except each mandatory selected choice plus another choice, of which one must be the sought-after choice, logical election is guarantied, after seeing whether one of the surviving choices came from the small group or the large group of choices. The present invention is also novel and practical in providing a method for letting each voter to divide a group of candidates in two groups and, then, vote for all the candidates in one of the groups, or to have a group of contestants divided into pairs and the voters to vote for elimination one contestant in each pair, in turn. Such a method in elections makes it highly probable that the winner has, at least, been chosen by the majority of the voters, if not by all the voters.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
       [0001]    The invention herein relates to methods for fair elections, games, show-games and lottery. In one method, secret selection from a set of choices divides the set of choices into small set and large set, which precedes a mandatory single selection. Such division of choices makes it more probable that the sought-after choice may be found among the large set of choices, whereupon, election between the two choices that had survived elimination could be based on mathematical logic. In another method, there is a division of the set of choices into two sets of choices, of which one set may be chosen for division of its choices into a small group of choices and a large group of choices, in order to provide sensible basis for related decisions. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    The present invention is novel in that it provides methods for fair chance of winning. Further, the present invention is also practical because its methods could be used to supplement, complement and improve many existing games, show-games, lottery and elections, where selections are paramount, by converting senseless selections into sensible selections. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0003]    The present invention relates to games, shows, lottery and elections where a player, contestant, candidate, or a voter, may be required to make selections from a group of individually labeled choices. The choices may represent, among other things, safes, cases, values, numbered tickets, or persons. The invention introduces novel methods, not utilized to this day. In one method, a ticket holder, a player, a contestant, or a candidate has fair odds in selecting and electing a sought-after choice from given choices. Another method lets a voter in en election to divide a group of candidates in two groups and vote for each of the candidates in one of the groups, so as to make certain that the winning candidate received the majority of the votes. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
         [0004]      FIGS. 1 ,  2 ,  3 , and  4  are schematic diagrams of one embodiment of the present invention, where a player plays against a banker and there are the minimum possible safes in play. 
           [0005]      FIG. 5  is a schematic diagram of another embodiment of this invention, where unlimited number of players may join a banker in a game that have unlimited safes and is intended primarily to be played via Internet web site. 
           [0006]      FIG. 6  is a schematic diagram of a show-game and it is one more embodiment of the present invention, which involves a host, a contestant and a set of cases, which is intended primarily as a show-game for Television networks, similar to the show-game “Deal or No Deal”. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION  
       [0007]    A simple version of the present invention, shown in  FIGS. 1 ,  2 ,  3  and  4 , is a game involving a banker, a player and a set of three safes, of which one of the safes is the banker&#39;s safe, where the sough-after monetary value is hidden.  FIG. 1  shows safes A, B and C. $2 is deposited in the banker&#39;s safe C, $1 from the banker and $1 from the player. First, the player has divided the safes into two groups, safe A, as the small group and safes BC, as the large group. This division makes it more probable that the banker&#39;s safe is safe B or safe C. The player, then, selects safe B and the banker eliminates the empty safe among the safes not selected, which is safe A. The player knows that since the odds between safe B and safe C are equal, withdrawal is the right move for getting the $1 refunded.  FIG. 2  shows the same safes A, B and C as in  FIG. 1 . Here, the player elects safe A because it is more probable that case A is the banker&#39;s safe. In fact, the money was not there and the banker wins the $10.  FIG. 3  shows the same safes A, B and C as in  FIG. 1 . Here, safe A is the banker&#39;s safe and the secretly selected safe B was randomly eliminated, because the banker has to eliminate one of two empty safes, since the player selected the banker&#39;s safe A. Logic made the player elect safe A because it was more likely that when safe C was picked secretly, the banker&#39;s safe should have been safe A or safe B. For the fact that safe B has been eliminated, it was prudent to elect safe A and the player did in fact win the $20.  FIG. 4  shows the same safes A, B and C as in  FIG. 1 . Here, the situation is similar to the situation in  FIG. 3 . Since safe C has been eliminated, Logic has dictated that safe A should be elected. However, the player elected, unreasonably, to withdraw and, therefore, there is no refund and the banker wins the $4. 
         [0008]    In another version of this invention is a game that may involve more than three safes and more than one player. Each player could, therefore, make more than one undisclosed selections before making the single mandatory selection, shown in  FIGS. 5 . 
         [0009]    In a game intended primarily for Internet users,  FIG. 5  shows that the banker has chosen to have only four more participants in the game and to present for play one hundred safes. In addition, the banker decided that each player input is $1 and that the play period must be for 1/hr.  FIG. 5  also shows that $5, which included the Baker&#39;s $1 input, was randomly deposited in undisclosed safe  4  and that safe  17 , together with the mandatory selected safes  00 ,  11 ,  12  and  44 , have survived the random elimination. 
         [0010]    In still another version, among others, of the invention is a show-game that involves a host, a contestant, a set of numbered cases and varying values in each case, as shown in  FIG. 6 . 
         [0011]      FIG. 6  shows that the contestant in a show-game, such as “Deal or No Deal”, has divided the set of cases into small group of case # 3  and large group of the rest of the cases, before making the mandatory single case selection for rejection from the set of cases, where a sought-after value is hidden, so as to have a fair chance to get the lesser value case rejected. 
         [0012]    Each game-play version seen in  FIGS. 1 ,  2 ,  3 ,  4 ,  5  and  6  may be played in any setting including Television shows, Internet web sites and other means of communications. In Internet web site, for example, an individual can log in as a banker, deposit the required fees and set the rules and conditions for the game-play. Other individuals may join as players, by logging-in and paying the required fees. The value received from each participant, in equal shares, is randomly deposited in the undisclosed banker&#39;s safe. 
         [0013]    The beauty of the present invention is that in the version shown in  FIG. 5 , an individual may be the banker in multiple games and join as a player in other games after logging in, once. 
         [0014]    Another beauty of the invention is the fact that it could supplement, compliment and improve any game-play, show-game, lottery, or election system, which is lacking the mathematical logic upon which a player, a contestant, a ticket holder, or a candidate, may base the critical move when deciding between given choices. 
         [0015]    In  FIG. 5 , player A has lost because safe  17 , which has not been eliminated, was in player A secretly selected safes and the elected safe  44  was empty. Player B elected, correctly, to withdraw and because the banker has won, player B did not win or lose. Player C should have elected safe  11  and not withdraw, even though safe  11  was not the banker&#39;s safe. Therefore, player C has lost. Player D has failed to complete all the moves in a timely manner, therefore, player D has lost. At the end, the banker has won $4 out of $5. 
         [0016]      FIG. 6  shows eight cases, each with undisclosed and different monetary value as follows: case # 1  with $100; case # 2  with $1000; case # 3  with $10,000; case # 4  with $100,000; case # 5  with $1,000,000; case # 6  with $1, case # 7  with $10 and case # 8  with $50. The contestant picked case # 2 , with the hope it contains the $1,000,000. Before selecting case # 5  for rejection, the contestant has divided the cases in a small group of one case # 3  and a large group that includes all the rest of the cases, so as to establish mathematical probability of likelihood that the sought-after case is in the large group. The random elimination that occurs leaves two cases standing, case # 5 , the selected case for rejection, and case # 1  from the large group, provided, the sought-after case must be Case # 5  or case # 1 . Based on pure logic, the contestant elects to switch case # 5  with case # 1 , because it was more probable that case # 1  has lower monetary value than case # 5 . Thus, the $100 is lost and the $1,000,000 is still in play. The host offers a “Deal” and the contestant answer is “No Deal”. The contestant next selection of case # 5  for rejection was preceded by selecting cases # 3  and # 6  to be in the small group. After the random elimination, case # 5  and case # 6  were left standing. The contestant elects not to switch case # 5  with case # 6 , because case # 6  came from the small group. This time, however, logic did not work, as it should, and the $1,000,000 is lost. The host offers a “Deal” and the contestant takes the “Deal”. 
         [0017]    Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide games in which a participant has unlimited options and to make sure that each election shall have logical basis. Another object of the invention is to open vast opportunities for variety of games, shows and other social activities where the choices are unlimited. Furthermore, my invention includes, also, a method for letting each voter in election systems to divide the candidates in two groups and vote for every candidate in the chosen group. In selection by vote shows a candidate may also divide the voters in a process similar to the process used in  FIG. 6 , in order to have a fair chance to win more votes. 
         [0018]    In an election, a registered voter should have the right to cast his single ballot or vote for any number of candidates running for Office. Furthermore, candidates should have the right to receive all the votes they are entitled to receive. The Constitution of the United States guarantees free and fair elections, which could be achieved only when each registered voter is allowed to vote for one or more candidates running for the same single Office. In a general election, for example, a register voter should be free to vote for any number of the Presidential candidates, whether there are two, three, or more running for the Office of President. That is to say, one ballot for each candidate he or she chooses to vote for. The same should apply to all elective offices, referendum, or selection by vote. 
         [0019]    The unfair results of past elections make it clear that the Framers of the United States Constitution envisioned true equality in the exercise of the right to vote. This is what the 14 th , 15 th  and the 19 th  Amendments to the Constitution have guaranteed, namely, free and fair elections. 
         [0020]    It is obvious that elected and appointed officials, have prevented citizens of the United States, by means of statutory enactments, regulations and rules promulgations, from exercising their Constitutional rights to vote in free and fair elections, which prevented candidates, who could have received the majority of the votes, from being elected. Many candidates, who did not have the support of the majority of the people, were elected. 
         [0021]    The two-party system, for example, may still be preserved. However, even in such a system, the right to vote shall not be “abridged” by the states. The states must let each voter vote for any number of the democratic presidential hopefuls, or for any number of the republican presidential hopefuls, as the case maybe. A substantial number of voters are prevented from voting for the candidates of their preferred choices. This is because their preferred choices may have already been eliminated by means of unfair election practices. The rights of all voters to vote in free and fair elections have been abridged. Many potential voters may have even decided not to vote at all after concluding that their votes will have no real meaning or impact on the election. The current election practices are inherently unfair because votes have unequal effect on elections. It is also true that virtually all candidates were deprived of votes they could have received had the present invention has been implemented. The fundamental concept here is that injustices to voters and candidates can be addressed by simply letting voters vote for all the candidates of their choice, no matter what election structure is in place. It can easily be demonstrated that the present invention is feasible and practical because the only change it causes is in the number of ballots to be counted. Then, it will be up to each state whether to maintain the entire election structure as it has been, or to do away with unnecessary processes like the runoff elections. Four Amendments, which refer directly to voting rights, say that the right to vote “. . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . ” The meaning of these words “denied or abridged” is that the right to vote must not only be denied completely but also it must not be curtailed, in any way. 
         [0022]    Under the current election system, it is inevitable that the elected President is not necessarily the majority choice of the Electoral College or the majority of the people, when there is a third party candidate. On the other hand, the method in the present invention, which is constitutionally imperative, will guarantee that the President will always have the majority of the votes, or the majority of the Electoral College. 
         [0023]    The states may have not denied the people the right to vote, in a technical sense. However, the states have abridged that right. It is inherent in the method presented by my invention, as well as in the Constitution that an elected candidate should always be chosen by the majority of the voters, or the majority of the Electoral College. The states should not interpret the terms “denied” as a license to give the people “some” rights to vote. The inherent interest of democracy is that the majority must rule. Many controversial issues, which have evolved under the current unfair election practices may never be solved, no matter how much legislative effort are expanded, unless my method for election is implemented. 
         [0024]    For an election to be free and fair there must be a choice between two candidates, two sides, two groups, or two parties. This was the idea behind the two-party system. In reality it is impossible to limit the number of candidates to two for any specific office. Yet, in past elections the notion of free and fair election has been ignored and the practice of choosing one candidate from three or more candidates was forced on the people. 
         [0025]    In a presidential election, for instance, when there is a choice between two candidates running for President, it is similar to a choice between two sides, or two groups of candidates. In a case where there are three presidential candidates, a voter should have the right to divide the candidates in two groups—one group of one candidate and the other group of two candidates. This way, a vote for the group of one would have the same quality and equality as a vote for the group of two. The significance of such practice is that by voting for one side of this equation a voter is authorizing—under Constitutional mandated understanding—the votes that would be cast for the other candidate, or candidates, on the other side of the equation. Therefore, each voter may be regarded as having voted for the President-elect, whether or not he or she actually voted for him. 
         [0026]    In past elections, when there were three or more presidential candidates, the votes cast for candidates other than for the President-elect have not authorized the votes cast for the President-elect. Therefore, such votes may not be regarded as votes for the President. That is why citizens could have refused to accept the President-elect as their President. 
         [0027]    It is possible, under this two-group method, that with a third party presidential candidate, each of the three candidates for President would receive about one-third of the votes. Yet, even in such a case, the candidate receiving the most votes should be considered as having been elected by all the voters, even though only about one-third actually voted for him. Each voter would know that even if he or she did not actually vote for all of his or her preferred candidates, because of the way he or she has divided the candidates in two groups and the choice that has been made, he or she has authorized the election of the President-elect, even if in fact he or she did not vote for him. Therefore, it is highly probable that in a general election, where there is a third party candidate for President, the voters would more likely focus their attention on whether not to vote for their last choice than on whether to vote for their first choice. In other words, most voters will probably choose to vote for their two preferred choices rather than for their first choice and the President-elect would, in fact, be of the majority and also would be regarded as President of the people and by the people. This would render any thoughts of safeguard, such as “super-delegates”, against any undesirable winner, unnecessary. This is because there would be no reasonable risk, under the method in the present invention, of electing a candidate who is an extremist and undesirable by the great majority of the people. 
         [0028]    Although the foregoing invention has been described in some detail by way of illustration and example for purposes of clarity and understanding, it will be readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teaching of this invention, that certain changes and modifications may be made thereto without departing from the spirit or scope of the appended claims.