Instant-runoff voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Notes) |
(→Notes) |
||
Line 242: | Line 242: | ||
40 B |
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.) |
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== |
==See also== |
||
*[[Australian electoral system]] |
*[[Australian electoral system]] |