On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:02 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm 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.)
That's really a mischaracterization of IRV. IRV (and STV in general)
does not produce a candidate ordering. It simply finds a winner by
interpreting the ballots as a list of contingent choices. In
particular, no ranking is implied by order of elimination.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
