[EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must

Eric Gorr eric at ericgorr.net
Fri Jan 23 13:45:02 PST 2004

At 4:22 PM -0500 1/23/04, Dgamble997 at aol.com wrote:
>Eric Gorr wrote:
>>Condorcet did not elect the wrong candidate.  The voters were clearly
>>split, but both of the larger groups preferred the third option over
>>the primary opposition. As such, the highest utility candidate was
>>elected by Condorcet.
>>Why do you believe that the first place preferences matter more then
>>the middle or final preferences? What is the basis for this
>There are 3 candidates in an election A,B and C. The votes and 
>relative utilities are:
>45 A1.0>B0.3>C0.1
>8   B1.0>A0.6>C0.2
>5   B1.0>C0.6>A0.2
>42 C1.0>B0.4>A0.1
>The Condorcet winner is B. Adding up the utilities of the candidates 
>the winner we get
>A: 45x1 + 8x0.6 + 5x0.2 + 42x0.1 = 55
>B: 13x1 + 45x0.3 + 42x0.4 = 43.3
>C:  42x1 + 45x0.1 + 8x0.2 + 5x0.6 = 51.1
>A has the highest total utility, A is not the Condorcet winner.

Yes, I can invent numbers that show just the opposite.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list