SODA voting (Simple Optionally-Delegated Approval): Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq |
imported>Homunq |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
{{Tenn_voting_example}} |
{{Tenn_voting_example}} |
||
In this simplified example, all the residents of each city agree on the rankings of all the other cities, so there would be no reason for anybody to do anything but bullet vote. Memphis has the first option to |
In this simplified example, all the residents of each city agree on the rankings of all the other cities, so there would be no reason for anybody to do anything but bullet vote. Memphis has the first option to choose approvals for its delegated votes, and, as the leader, decides to approve noone but itself. Nashville goes second; it is the pairwise champion (Condorcet winner), so it also declines to approve any others. Chatanooga and Knoxville would approve each other and Nashville, to prevent Memphis from winning. Nashville would then be the winner, with 58% approval after delegation. |
||
Chatanooga could, before the election, not include Nashville in its preference list, hoping to force Nashville to |
Chatanooga could, before the election, not include Nashville in its preference list, hoping to force Nashville to approve it. But in that case Memphis would approve Nashville to prevent Nashville from being forced to hand the election to Chatanooga, and so Nashville would win with an even larger majority. Therefore, Chatanooga will not attempt this. |
||
== Advantages == |
== Advantages == |