Conditional Approval: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(initial) |
imported>KVenzke (Tennessee) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Comments== |
==Comments== |
||
CdlA is not [[monotone]], similar to other methods of this sort. Experimentally it is quite close to [[MinMax]](Winning Votes), and the situation with regard to burial strategies and deterrence is probably similar. |
CdlA is not [[monotone]], similar to other methods of this sort. Experimentally it is quite close to [[MinMax]](Winning Votes), and the situation with regard to burial strategies and deterrence is probably similar. |
||
== Example == |
|||
{{Tenn_voting_example}} |
|||
Suppose that the voters place their first preference in the top slot and their second preference in the middle slot, leaving the bottom two preferences unvoted. |
|||
Initially, we count only the top-slot ratings, and Memphis has the most votes (42%) and is the first leader. In response to this, supporters of the other three cities all cast their middle-slot preferences, since they didn't give any rating to Memphis. This results in Chattanooga leading with 58%. Since the Memphis voters didn't rate Chattanooga, they cast their preference for Nashville. This brings Nashville's count up to 68%. |
|||
Chattanooga and Knoxville supporters didn't vote for Nashville, but they have already added their middle-slot preferences so nothing changes. Nashville can't lose the leading position and is thus elected. |
|||
[[Category:Single-winner voting systems]] |
[[Category:Single-winner voting systems]] |