Monotonicity: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (Remove stray [[) |
|||
Line 96:
A party-list strategy exploiting something similar (down-ranking CDU '''and''' additionally up-ranking another party, e.g. FDP) happened in the German federal election of 2005, in which conservative voters in Dresden deliberately voted against the CDU, their party of choice, in order to maximize that party's number of seats in the federal parliament. This was possible due to Germany's voting system (mixed member proportional with overhang seats computed independently for each federal state) and the fact that the vote in Dresden took place a week after the rest of the country due to the death of a candidate, enabling voters in Dresden to vote tactically in full knowledge of the results already achieved elsewhere. As a result of this, the German Constitutional Court ruled on July 3 2008 that the German voting system must be reformed to eliminate its non-monotonicity.<ref> See e.g. [http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/?p=117]</ref>
=== 2009 Burlington, Vermont Mayoral election ===
{{seealso|[[2009 Burlington mayoral election]]}}
A real-life monotonicity violation was detected in the [[2009 Burlington
===Australian elections and by-elections ===
|