3 ms·
How are you defining "correct result?" One formal definition could be the Condorcet winner (the candidate that would win a one-on-one election against each othe
by baddox 10y ago
How are you defining "correct result?" One formal definition could be the Condorcet winner (the candidate that would win a one-on-one election against each other candidate), but some elections don't even have a Condorcet winner. Also note that neither plurality voting nor instant runoff voting are guaranteed to select the Condorcet winner if one exists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion
- skrap 10y agoI'm of the uninformed opinion that any national election will probably have a Condorcet winner. IF that's true, then we could literally pick any Condorcet method, and just go with that. Condorcet IRV seems a reasonable choice, in that it's relatively easy to explain to people (compare to beatpath, for example). I think all the discussion about the merits of different methods is just so much bikeshedding. It might matter, but it's far more important to pick _something_ than to stick with plurality! In that spirit, I am totally in support of Maine's choice to go with IRV, even with its warts.