Bottom-Two-Runoff IRV: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Notes) |
(→Notes) |
||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
|} |
|} |
||
Note that the example requires two cases of the [[Condorcet paradox]] in the base case: b>a, a>c, c>b and also c>b, b>d, d>c, so it is unlikely to occur in practice. |
|||
There are likely to be many candidates tied for having the fewest 1st choices; one possible non-random tiebreaker is to look for those among the tied candidates that have the fewest 2nd choices, then 3rd choices, etc. |
There are likely to be many candidates tied for having the fewest 1st choices; one possible non-random tiebreaker is to look for those among the tied candidates that have the fewest 2nd choices, then 3rd choices, etc. |
||