Talk:IRV Prime: Difference between revisions

:: That's just a figure of speech. Let me quote from the reference I provided:

Theorem 2 says that if an election rule satisfies Condorcet's principle, then it '''cannot''' possess '''any''' of the seven properties that are crossed in the column headed 2 in Table 1.

:: (emphasis mine.) The crossed properties are participation, four different monotonicity properties, later-no-help, and later-no-harm. Woodall then proceeds to prove this impossibility; if it were indeed only true some of the time, then one would imagine these proofs would contain the necessary qualifications, but they do not claim any such qualification beyond that the method must pass Condorcet. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 09:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

::In that case, if C is the winner and IRV Prime is majority rule in the two-candidate case, eliminating A (an irrelevant candidate) will make B win, which is a violation of IIA. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 09:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

==== References ====

<references/>