Talk:IRV Prime: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 28:
--[[User:Marcosb|Marcosb]] ([[User talk:Marcosb|talk]]) 16:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Was looking a little deeper at the theorem:
there must be a profile P arbitrarily close to this (in the proportions of ballots of each type) that does not yield a tie
The problem is, such a profile P may make it impossible for c to become the Condorcet winner; looking at all the profiles P where a wins (we must increment by 2 otherwise we continue to have a tie):
P1:
{{ballots|
abc: 5
acb: 2
bca: 3
bac: 2
cab: 3
cba: 2}}
P2:
{{ballots|
abc: 3
acb: 4
bca: 3
bac: 2
cab: 3
cba: 2}}
P3:
{{ballots|
abc: 4
acb: 3
bca: 3
bac: 2
cab: 3
cba: 2}}
It becomes clear that in Profile P where a tie is broken & a wins, a wins because they are the Condorcet winner, so it cannot be true that c is the Condorcet winner.
--[[User:Marcosb|Marcosb]] ([[User talk:Marcosb|talk]]) 17:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
== Arrow/IIA ==
| |||