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 … same result. 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.

But if they do want to play. Rather than do that calculated 3 vote move to make a tie, voters in should be able to simply vote for a 3 way tie without betraying anyone they voted for.

11 A>C

7 B>A

5 C>B

But, why do this? Why add an insincere preference, if all you get is a tie? Don’t ask your supporters to do that.

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 B>A, 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.

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.

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