Circular ties revisited
DEMOREP1 at aol.com
DEMOREP1 at aol.com
Mon Jun 8 21:58:31 PDT 1998
I agree- Welcome back Mike Ossipoff !
In further developments--
Assume a circular tie using number voting (1,2, etc.)
Assume that 3 choices have majority acceptability.
The three pairings are thus--
A 1A + 2CA *
B 1B + 2CB
B 1B + 2AB *
C 1C + 2AC
C 1C + 2BC *
A 1A + 2BA
where the 1 means the number of first choice votes and the 2 means the number
of second choice votes and * means the winner in the pairing (such that
A>B>C>A).
Assume that one of the winning pairings has the fewest votes.
I now suggest that such fewest votes winner be a loser for tie breaker
purposes (with the remaining two choices going head to head).
With 4 or more choices in a circular tie, there would be successive
eliminations of each remaining winner having the lowest number of votes in
his/her row win that had the highest number of votes.
Example- If left beats top, then it is a win (W). If not it is a loss (L).
The W's are the number of votes that produced the win.
A B C D
A X W L W
B L X W L
C W L X L
D L W W X
A>B, A>D, B>C, C>A, D>B, D>C
A>B>C>A>D, D>B>C
Was the above Condorcet's solution to the circular tie ???
I am not sure due to Mr. C's somewhat cryptic translated comments.
The death of Mr. C due to the fanatics of the 1789 French Revolution set back
Democracy and rational voting methods for single winners for some 200 years.
What a terrible loss-- similar to earlier mindless/ savage barbarians
attempting to destroy advances in civilization.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list