I do agree with James. Any election whatever the method can be subdivided in several different ones, with at least one different result, except if 100% of the voters place the same candidate as first choice.
If you restrict the number of subsets to two, any result obtained by less than 75% of the first choices can be lost by splitting the electorate artificially. Steph. James Gilmour a �crit : > Forest wrote: > > > Rob here's an inconsistency example adapted from message 7642 of the EM > > archives: > > > > First Precinct: > > 190 SHA > > 140 HAS > > 120 AHS > > > > Second Precinct: > > 150 SHA > > 170 HAS > > 230 AHS > > > > According to IRV, candidate H wins decisively in both precincts, > > but (according to IRV) candidate A wins decisively when the results from > > both precincts are combined. > > > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the inconsistency here at all. > > You either have two separate elections (Precinct 1 and Precinct 2) OR you have one > election in which electors happen to vote within their local precincts. > > If you have ONE election (precincts combined), the "results" within any individual > precinct are irrelevant. Only one result matters - the result obtained by > tabulating all the votes together. > > It should be no surprise to anyone that if you subsequently cut some sub-sets from > the whole set, you can get all sorts of different "results". But none of these is > relevant to the election. > > James > > ---- > For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), > please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
