Talk:Asset voting: Difference between revisions
→Smith Set: indent comment and add signature
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Smith Set: indent comment and add signature) |
|||
Line 21:
<blockquote> Asset always picks a winner or winner set that is in the Smith Set of negotiators' preferences if the negotiators are given enough time to negotiate</blockquote>
I don't see how this could be true, since it's a single-mark ballot and suffers from vote-splitting/center-squeeze. I find it hard to believe that [[User:Psephomancy/Three tribes|a candidate who received zero votes]] would win under Asset, even if they are the Condorcet winner and sole member of the Smith set. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
:* 49 Liberal>Moderate>Conservative>Kim Kardashian
:* 10 Moderate
:* 41 Conservative>Moderate>Liberal>Kim Kardashian
: The Moderate is the Condorcet winner of voter preferences here. But suppose the voters submit a single-mark ballot, and now the votes are: 49 Liberal, 10 Moderate, 41 Conservative, 0 KK. Let's say the negotiators are corrupt and got paid off to elect KK; then the negotiator preferences now are:
:* 49 KK>L>M>C
:* 10 KK>M
:* 41 KK>C>M>L
: So the Condorcet winner, and sole Smith Set member, for negotiator preferences is KK. - [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy]]
== Content from deleted Wikipedia article ==
|