Maximum Majority Voting: Difference between revisions

 

Imagine an election for the capital of [[Tennessee]], a state in the United States that is over 500 miles east-to-west, and only 110 miles north-to-south. Let's say the candidates for the capital are Memphis (on the far west end), Nashville (in the center), Chattanooga (129 miles southeast of Nashville), and Knoxville (on the far east side, 114 northeast of Chattanooga). Here's the population breakdown by metro area (surrounding county):

 

* Memphis (Shelby County): 826,330

Let's say that in the vote, the voters vote based on geographic proximity. Assuming that the population distribution of the rest of Tennessee follows from those population centers, one could easily envision an election where the percentages of votes would be as follows:

 

<tr>

<td>

 

First, list every pair, and determine the winner:

!Pair!!Winner

|-

Thus, the pairs from above would be sorted this way:

 

!Pair!!Winner

|-

=== Ambiguity resolution example ===

 

 

* A > B 72%

* Lock A > B

* Lock B > C

 

Therefore, A is the winner.

This would be true for any [[Condorcet method]].

Using the [[first-past-the-post]] system and some other systems, Memphis would have won the election by having the most people, even though Nashville won every simulated pairwise election outright. Using [[Instant-runoff voting]] in this example would result in Knoxville winning, even though more people preferred Nashville over Knoxville.

 

== External resources ==

 

 

{{fromwikipedia}}