[EM] Need IRV examples; voting show

[Elisabeth Varin/Stephane Rouillon]

I do agree with James.
Any election whatever the method
can be subdivided in several different ones,
with at least one different result,
except if 100% of the voters place the same
candidate as first choice.

If you restrict the number of subsets to two,
any result obtained by less than 75% of the first choices
can be lost by splitting the electorate artificially.

Steph.

James Gilmour a écrit :

> Forest wrote:
>
> > Rob here's an inconsistency example adapted from message 7642 of the EM
> > archives:
> >
> > First Precinct:
> >                 190 SHA
> >                 140 HAS
> >                 120 AHS
> >
> > Second Precinct:
> >                 150 SHA
> >                 170 HAS
> >                 230 AHS
> >
> > According to IRV, candidate H wins decisively in both precincts,
> > but (according to IRV) candidate A wins decisively when the results from
> > both precincts are combined.
> >
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the inconsistency here at all.
>
> You either have two separate elections (Precinct 1 and Precinct 2) OR you have one
> election in which electors happen to vote within their local precincts.
>
> If you have ONE election (precincts combined), the "results" within any individual
> precinct are irrelevant.  Only one result matters - the result obtained by
> tabulating all the votes together.
>
> It should be no surprise to anyone that if you subsequently cut some sub-sets from
> the whole set, you can get all sorts of different "results".  But none of these is
> relevant to the election.
>
> James
>
> ----
> For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
> please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em