Ranked Robin: Difference between revisions

Line 269:
 
== Legal and economic viability ==
When legally defined as ''always'' reducing to a finalist set first and then electing the finalist with the greatest total difference (Total Advantage) among finalists (as described in the '''1<sup>st</sup> Degree''' tiebreaker), Ranked Robin always elects a majority preferred winner, arguably including in cases of '''2<sup>nd</sup> Degree''' ties. This legal definition does not change the outcomes of Ranked Robin. Many municipalities in the [[United States]] are subject to majority clauses in their state election codes, often requiring those jurisdictions to run two or more elections for a certain races. Ranked Robin can satisfy many of those majority clauses in a single election, allowing municipalities to eliminate an election if so desired, helping to offset the costs of implementing Ranked Robin, typically entirely within one election cycle.
 
If there is only 1 finalist, then they are voted for by a majority of voters who had a preference among finalists.
 
If there are multiple finalists, at least 1 finalist will have a positive difference (Total Advantage) and at least 1 finalist will have a negative differenceTotal Advantage because the sum of differencesadvantages will always equal 0. Because the finalist with the greatest differenceTotal Advantage is elected, that winner is guaranteed to have a positive differenceTotal Advantage, demonstrating that among finalists, they are a majority preferred winner.
 
If there is a '''2<sup>nd</sup> Degree''' tie, all of the finalists could potentially (but rarely) have a negative differenceTotal Advantage when compared to all candidates, but it could be argued that because the ''finalist'' with the greatest differenceTotal Advantage is elected, the winner was voted for by a majority of voters who had a preference ''among finalists''. This argument is further strengthened in the case that exactly 2 finalists experience a '''2<sup>nd</sup> Degree''' tie, which covers almost all cases of '''2<sup>nd</sup> Degree''' ties. If this argument is found not to satisfy a particular majority clause, it may be desirable to leave the '''2<sup>nd</sup> Degree''' tiebreaker out of the legislation and legally declare a tie in the equivalent case of a '''2<sup>nd</sup> Degree''' tie, which is about as rare as a tie under [[First Past the Post electoral system|Choose-one Voting]].
 
Furthermore, in most cases with only 1 finalist, including all elections with a Condorcet Winner, the winner will be majority preferred over ''all'' other candidates because the winner’s Total Advantage is positive; however, there are rare theoretical cases in which the only finalist has a negative Total Advantage over all other candidates. If the “majority preferred among finalists” argument doesn’t legally hold when there’s only 1 finalist, then this rare case could either explicitly be denoted as not electing a majority winner (thus requiring an extra election to be run), or an alternative winner could be calculated by selecting the candidate with the greatest Total Advantage among all candidates (completely ignoring any reduction to a set of finalists).
 
== Criteria ==
67

edits