Let us try a language you understand:
- more voters prefer B to C
- a fraction of those voters will vote for A because they even prefer A to
other candidates
- thus C can get elected because of vote-splitting between A and B
Even if more voters prefer B to C, the result is that C wins over B. This is
clearly non-monotonic.
This is a typical vote-splitting case using FPTP.
Now do you understand in what reality we live today?
I do. This is why I consider alternatives.
Yours, Stéph.
From: "Kathy Dopp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Stéphane Rouillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those
defendingnon-Monotonicvoting methods
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:35:02 -0700
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Stéphane Rouillon
> Exactly, no electoral system can garantee coherence between the order of
> preferences of a voter
> and the impact the participation of that voter has on the result.
Yea Right! The vote counting method that is employed cannot guarantee
the coherence of "the impact the participation of that voter has on
the result".
What alternate reality are we living in today?
Kathy
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
