Talk:Condorcet paradox: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
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). 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, |
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, supporters of A should only need to change 3 of their votes to A>C. That makes the 3 way tie without betraying anyone they voted for. |
||
8 A |
|||
3 A>C |
|||
7 B>A |
7 B>A |
||
Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
5 C>B |
5 C>B |
||
It's a paradox. It wasn't before, but it is now. And based on these votes, C deserves to be in the conversation. |
It's a paradox. It wasn't before, but it is now. And based on these votes, C deserves to be in the conversation. The real focus should be on voting. 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. Candidates need to prove they are 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. |
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. |