Difference between revisions of "Kemeny–Young method"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
addition of example, etc.
imported>Allens (Reformat) 
imported>DanBishop (addition of example, etc.) 

order them the the opposite way as the given ranking. The distance is
the sum across all such pairs. The ranking with the least distance wins.
The winning candidate is the top candidate in the winning ranking.
Strategies this method is vulnerable to: [[Tactical votingcompromising]], [[Tactical votingburying]], and [[Strategic nominationcrowding]].▼
==Strategic Vulnerability==
▲
==Example==
{{Tenn_voting_example}}
Consider the ranking Nashville>Chattanooga>Knoxville>Memphis. This ranking contains 6 orderings of pairs of candidates:
* Nashville>Chattanooga, for which 32% of the voters disagree.
* Nashville>Knoxville, for which 32% of the voters disagree.
* Nashville>Memphis, for which 42% of the voters disagree.
* Chattanooga>Knoxville, for which 17% of the voters disagree.
* Chattanooga>Memphis, for which 42% of the voters disagree.
* Knoxville>Memphis, for which 42% of the voters disagree.
The distance score for this ranking is 207.
It can be shown that this ranking is the one with the lowest distance score. Therefore, the winning ranking is Nashville>Chattanooga>Knoxville>Memphis, and so the winning candidate is Nashville.
==External links==
[[Category:Singlewinner voting systems]][[Category:Condorcet Methods]]
