Talk:Condorcet paradox: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
If the 11 supporters of A really had a second choice and it was B or C using IRV… 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 to succeed). |
||
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. |
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. But maybe they will play. Rather than do that calculated 3 vote move to make a tie, voters should be able to simply vote for a 3 way tie without betraying anyone they voted for. |
||
But if they do want to play. Rather than do that calculated 3 vote move to make a tie, voters should be able to simply vote for a 3 way tie without betraying anyone they voted for. |
|||
11 A>C |
11 A>C |
||
| Line 23: | Line 21: | ||
5 C>B |
5 C>B |
||
You still need at least three to cast A>C to get the tie. Voters have to wonder why you are so desperate as to ask. |
|||
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 A>B, 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. |
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 A>B, 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. |
||