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). 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.

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. No betrayal.

⚫

3 A>C

8 A

⚫

3 A>C

7 B>A

Line 22:

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. ~~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.

It's a paradox. It wasn't before, but it is now. And based on these votes, C deserves to be in the conversation. A shouldn't even be looking for a tie. All A needs 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.

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)