Thanks for explaining that to me, Matt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Q
As I understand it, the paradoxical result is the same as failing to produce a winner.
|
If that's the definition of failing to produce a [deserving] winner, then, when voters have paradoxical preferences, no system can produce one; the voters' preferences make it impossible. This isn't a weakness of ranked choice unless we agree that concealing paradoxical preferences is a strength. (I see pros and cons.)
[We may have to agree to disagree about whether paradoxical preferences exist equally whether or not the voting system allows them to be expressed. On that issue, we're writing in circles.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Q
"A Condorcet method is an election method that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections..."
|
Then a Condorcet method is a specific type of ranked-choice voting. Thanks for teaching me a new term. Such a method likely has some benefits. It has the weakness you point out.
There are simpler ranked-choice methods that don't share the weakness. In them, lower-tier candidates are
eliminated and their votes given to their voters' preferences among the remaining candidates.