They are quirky because of IIA. The papers on this are from the 1970's. Quote
Wikipedia:
"The Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, named after Allan Gibbard and Mark
Satterthwaite, is a
result about the deterministic voting systems that choose a single winner using
only the preferences
of the voters, where each voter ranks all candidates in order of preference.
The Gibbard–Satterthwaite
theorem states that, for three or more candidates, one of the following three
things must hold for every
voting rule:
1. The rule is dictatorial (i.e., there is a single individual who can
choose the winner), or
2. There is some candidate who can never win, under the rule, or
3. The rule is susceptible to tactical voting, in the sense that there
are conditions under which a voter
with full knowledge of how the other voters are to vote and of the rule being
used would have an incentive to vote in a manner that does not reflect his
preferences. "
I do wish we only posted in text. If I quote an html email as text I don't get
any > symbols anymore to mark
what the other person said. And if I quote it as html, I have to supply my own
indentation and still don't get
any marker next to the quoted text.
Kevin
De : David L Wetzell <[email protected]>
À : Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>
Cc : [email protected]
Envoyé le : Dimanche 19 février 2012 19h53
Objet : [EM] élection de trois élection de trois
It seems quite a few election rules get quirky in one way or the other with a
3-way competitive election.
That might be a point worth considering in the abstract in a paper or
something.... why are 3-way single-winner elections quirky?
dlw
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> wrote:
..., cuz the simple fact of the matter is that IRV works best with only 3
candidates.
>
>
>2.5, actually.
>
>Jameson
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
