Anonymous user
3-2-1 voting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Homunq |
imported>Homunq No edit summary |
||
Line 4:
* Find 2 Finalists: the semifinalists with the fewest rejections.
* Find 1 winner: the finalist who is rated above the other on more ballots.
== Motivation for each step ==
Step 1: A winner should have strong support; at least some voters who have paid attention and are enthusiastic. But if you keep fewer than 3 at this stage, you'd risk prematurely eliminating a centrist and leaving only the two extremes.
Step 2: This allows a majority of the electorate to have a veto on any candidate. Also, candidates that are eliminated here would usually have little chance in step 3 anyway.
Step 3: This is like a runoff between the two strongest candidates. If you know which two candidates will be finalists, you have no incentive not to rank them honestly, and everybody who made a distinction between them gets equal voting power.
== Properties ==
This system satisfies the [[Majority criterion]]; the [[Condorcet Loser criterion]]; [[monotonicity]]; and [[local independence of irrelevant alternatives]].
Steps 1 and 3 satisfy the [[later no-harm]] criterion, so that the only strategic reason not to add any "acceptable" ratings would be if your favorite was one of the two most-rejected semifinalists but also was able to beat the least-rejected semifinalist in step 3. This combination of weak and strong is unlikely to happen in real life, and even less likely to be predictable enough a priori to be a basis for strategy.
== Examples ==
| |||