Talk:Condorcet paradox: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
| 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? |
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 |
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. 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. |
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. |
||