Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances: Difference between revisions
Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances (view source)
Revision as of 01:51, 7 September 2018
, 5 years agoclean up (AWB), typos fixed: Therefore → Therefore,, However → However, , Chatanooga → Chattanooga, two round → two-round (2)
imported>RobLa (Copied from Wikipedia. See the history page there for full credits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_different_voting_systems_under_similar_circumstances&action=history) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) m (clean up (AWB), typos fixed: Therefore → Therefore,, However → However, , Chatanooga → Chattanooga, two round → two-round (2)) |
||
Line 9:
{{Tenn voting example}}
We can pretend that these are "true preferences" among voters and that this implies how they would vote. However, in an actual election, within a specific voting system, there will be incentives to vote differently (compromising) to improve influence for an acceptable winner.
== One-vote systems ==
Line 37:
*Chattanooga: 15%
In a two
The voters from Knoxville and Chattanooga prefer Nashville, because it is closer, over Memphis, so the results of the second ballot would be:
Line 46:
Nashville would then be declared the winner.
Note on strategy: A two
==== Potential for tactical voting ====
Line 82:
|bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|26
|bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|26
|bgcolor="#e0e0ff"|<
|-
!bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|Chattanooga
|bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|15
|bgcolor="#e0e0ff"|<
|bgcolor="#e0e0ff"|0
|-
!bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|Knoxville
|bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|17
|bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|<
|bgcolor="#ffffc0"|<
|}
Line 114:
!Chattanooga
|bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|15%
|bgcolor="#e0e0ff"|<
|-
!Knoxville
|bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|17%
|bgcolor="#e0e0ff"|<
|}
The [[Supplementary Vote]] may be understood both as a special variant of Instant runoff voting (also known as the "alternative vote") in which there are only two rounds of counting and the voter is restricted to expressing only a first and a second preference, and of runoff voting (also known as the two-round system) in which both 'rounds' may occur without the need for a second poll.
Line 143:
!Chattanooga
|bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|15%
|bgcolor="#e0e0ff"|<
|-
!Knoxville
|bgcolor="#ffc0c0"|17%
|bgcolor="#e0e0ff"|<
|}
The [[Sri Lankan supplementary vote]] may be understood both as a special variant of [[Instant-runoff voting]] (also known as the "alternative vote") in which there are only two rounds of counting and the voter is restricted to expressing only a first, second, and third preference, and of [[Two-round system|runoff voting]] (also known as the two-round system) in which both "rounds" may occur without the need for a second poll.
Line 153:
Assuming each voter votes according to their sincere preferences (for a more sophisticated approach, see below), Nashville and Memphis would receive the most votes and advance to the second round.
The second preference of voters from Chattanooga is for Knoxville. However, Knoxville has been eliminated, so the votes must be transferred to the third choice of Chattanooga voters: Nashville, which remains in the race. The second preference of voters from Knoxville is for Chattanooga. Chattanooga has been eliminated so their votes also transfer to their third
On the second and final count, therefore, all the votes from the two eliminated candidates transfer to Nashville. Nashville now has more votes than Memphis and so '''Nashville is declared the winner'''. Note that under "conventional" SV the winner would have been Memphis.
Line 250:
In [[Bucklin voting]] first choice votes are counted first. If one candidate has a majority, that candidate wins. Otherwise the second choices are added to the first choices. Again, if a candidate with a majority vote is found, the winner is the candidate with the most votes in that round. Lower rankings are added as needed.
The first round has no majority winner. Therefore, the second rank votes are added. This moves Nashville and
=== Majority choice approval ===
| |||