Talk:Condorcet paradox: Difference between revisions

Line 12:

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). 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 a tie, voters should be able to simply vote for a 3 way tie without betraying anyone they voted for.

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.

11 A>C

Line 21:

Line 20:

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.

A still needs at least three voters to cast A>C for the tie. Voters have to wonder why A is so desperate as to ask.

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 for your candidate to prove themselves 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.