Talk:Condorcet paradox

Why a tie must be a tie in politics

We’ve seen it in IRV. Condorcet methods too. A close election brings out the worst in candidates and their election campaigns.

11 A

7 B>A

5 C>B

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 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. No betrayal.

3 A>C

8 A

7 B>A

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. 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.

RalphInOttawa (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)