Instant-runoff voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Notes) |
(→Notes) |
||
Line 242:
40 B
20 A=B </blockquote>If fractional equal-ranking is allowed, the number of votes each candidate has is 50, while if whole-votes equal-ranking is used instead, each candidate has 60 votes. However, they each have only 40 votes in their pairwise matchup.)
Example where IRV with whole votes equal ranking can give different results based on the winning rules used: <blockquote>45 A>B>C
35 B>A>C
20 C>B>A
B is a Condorcet winner with over 1/3rd of 1st choice votes, so they're guaranteed to win in IRV. But if the sneaky A-top voters vote:
'''45 A=C>B'''
Votes in the 1st round are 45 A 35 B 65 C.
If you elect a candidate the moment they have a majority, C would win, making the strategy backfire. But if you keep eliminating until you have only two candidates, then B is eliminated first, and then A wins with 80 votes.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/f7daa0/key_details_emerge_for_how_rankedchoice_in_nyc/fib0pgd?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x</ref></blockquote>Several variations of IRV have been proposed to meet the [[Condorcet]] and [[Smith criterion|Smith]] criteria. The simplest of these are to (either (elect the [[Condorcet winner]] if one exists), or (eliminate all candidates not in the [[Smith//IRV|Smith set]])), and then run IRV.
==See also==
*[[Australian electoral system]]
| |||