Talk:Monotonicity: Difference between revisions
→We need a better example
Line 20:
: For a method to be monotone, there must be no monotonicity failures anywhere. Checking against an example only shows that there's no monotonicity failure there; there might still be others elsewhere. The only way to know would be by checking a large number of elections, e.g. by simulations, or being entirely certain by mathematical proof. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 14:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I should have indicated that the current example has Left winning, then Right winning. My version of IRV elects Center both times, which is not the point. I need to find an example where my version does what IRV does. Of course, that's what my version is trying to fix. I have spent a little time not hoping to make it happen. So far, I haven't figured out how to not be monotonic. But it's on my list of things to do. [[User:RalphInOttawa|RalphInOttawa]] ([[User talk:RalphInOttawa|talk]]) 19:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
My version is not monotonic, just better than IRV. In the following example:
8 A
5 B>A
4 C>B
When 2 of the voters for A change (lowering) their opinion by casting votes for C>A
6 A
5 B>A
4 C>B
2 C>A
the result is three way tie to be decided by random draw. Not the guaranteed win by A that IRV would do.
[[User:RalphInOttawa|RalphInOttawa]] ([[User talk:RalphInOttawa|talk]]) 23:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
| |||