(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

## 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 works). 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 the votes fall just right, 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 now has a right to be in it to win it. This is more a vote to help C, than it is a vote to help A. Besides, there are more guaranteed ways for A to win. Just wrestle 1 vote away from B>A and make it A>B, or turn 1 vote by C>B into 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 end up with a paradox, don't make it into something it's not. Call it a tie and break it in the fairest possible way.

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