Talk:Condorcet paradox: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:29, 15 December 2023

Why a tie must be a tie in politics

We’ve seen it in IRV. Condorcet methods too. A close election brings out the worst in candidates and their election campaigns.

11 A

7 B>A

5 C>B

B wins in IRV and is the Condorcet winner. Supporters of A can’t be happy, but they voted and lost to a majority. If an unhappy candidate A sees that coming … IRV offers hope. Condorcet too?

If the 11 supporters of A really had a second choice and it was B or C using IRV… same result. However, IRV would elect A if 3 supporters moved over to C (voter betrayal works). Obviously, facing defeat, A has every reason to try, but supporters of A may not. Rather than do that calculated 3 vote move to make the votes fall just right, supporters of A should only need to change 3 of their votes to A>C (no betrayal).

3 A>C

8 A

7 B>A

5 C>B

It's a paradox. It wasn't before, but it is now. And based on these votes, C now has a right to be in it to win it. This is more a vote to help C, than it is a vote to help A. Besides, there are more guaranteed ways for A to win. Just wrestle 1 vote away from B>A and make it A>B, or turn 1 vote by C>B into C>A>B. Candidates need to prove they are better than the rest. That’s what voters want to see in an election. I think if you end up with a paradox, don't make it into something it's not. Call it a tie and break it in the fairest possible way.

RalphInOttawa (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 B wins in IRV and is the Condorcet winner. Supporters of A can’t be happy, but they voted and lost to a majority. If an unhappy candidate A sees that coming … IRV offers hope. Condorcet too?
-If the 11 supporters of A really had a second choice and it was B or C … same result.
+If the 11 supporters of A really had a second choice and it was B or C using IRV… same result.
-However, IRV would elect A if 3 supporters moved over to C (voter betrayal to succeed).
+However, IRV would elect A if 3 supporters moved over to C (voter betrayal works). Obviously, facing defeat, A has every reason to try, but supporters of A may not. Rather than do that calculated 3 vote move to make the votes fall just right, supporters of A should only need to change 3 of their votes to A>C (no betrayal).
-I recommend that it deserves nothing more than be a 3 way tie. Obviously, facing defeat, A has every reason to try, but supporters of A may not. The question to them is “Why cast an insincere vote, if all you get is a 3 way tie? If there was nothing wrong with electing B. Let it go.
+A>C
-But if they do want to play. Rather than do that calculated 3 vote move to make a tie, voters in should be able to simply vote for a 3 way tie without betraying anyone they voted for.
-A>C
+A
 B>A
@@ Line 23: / Line 22: @@
 C>B
+It's a paradox. It wasn't before, but it is now. And based on these votes, C now has a right to be in it to win it. This is more a vote to help C, than it is a vote to help A. Besides, there are more guaranteed ways for A to win. Just wrestle 1 vote away from B>A and make it A>B, or turn 1 vote by C>B into C>A>B. Candidates need to prove they are better than the rest. That’s what voters want to see in an election. I think if you end up with a paradox, don't make it into something it's not. Call it a tie and break it in the fairest possible way.
-But, why do this? Why add an insincere preference, if all you get is a tie? Don’t ask your supporters to do that.
-Why change your vote to get into a tie when you are ahead? All A needs to win is one more vote. Get 1 vote from B>A to become B>A, or 1 vote from C>B to become C>A>B. All you need is to prove yourself better than the rest. That’s what voters want to see in an election.
-I think if you find a paradox, accept it as a tie. Give all the candidates the right incentive to go out and get their own votes.
 [[User:RalphInOttawa|RalphInOttawa]] ([[User talk:RalphInOttawa|talk]]) 17:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)