Ha ha. Good one Kris. Thanks for the laugh.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> wrote: > Kathy Dopp wrote: > >> Notice how typically, Fair Vote claims that they found majority >> winners by manipulating the definition of majority to mean only those >> voters left standing by the final counting round. > > I wonder whether, if one were to make a "maximally wrong" IRV-type method > that eliminated the candidate most people voted for until only two were left > (and then picked the one who beat the other), FV would still claim the > "winner" to have been elected by a majority. > > E.g > > 30: A > D > C > B > 20: D > C > A > B > 20: C > A > D > B > 23: B > A > C > D > > Plurality counts: 30: A, 20: D, 20: C, 23: B > > Eliminate A. > > 50: D > C > B > 20: C > D > B > 23: B > C > D > > Plurality counts: 50: D, 20: C, 23: B. > > Eliminate D. > > 70: C > B > 23: B > C > > C wins by 70/93 = 75.3% of the votes. What a landslide! > > (Schulze and MAM gives A > D > C > B, and IRV gives A > B > C = D.) > > - > > Less facetiously, if all elimination methods have this property, then so > does BTR-IRV or Borda-elimination. Either of the two aforementioned methods > may be better than IRV itself - I would say "would" but if I remember > correctly, Warren claimed Nanson and Baldwin are extraordinarily easy to > manipulate. > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
