Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Example Condorcet method voting ballot. Blank votes are equivalent to ranking that candidate last. A Condorcet method (English: / k ɒ n d ɔːr ˈ s eɪ /; French: [kɔ̃dɔʁsɛ]) is an election method that elects the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate.
The authors showed that limiting any method to elections with no Condorcet winner (choosing the Condorcet winner when there was one) would never increase its susceptibility to tactical voting. They reported that the 'Condorcet-Hare' system which uses IRV as a tie-break for elections not resolved by the Condorcet criterion was as resistant to ...
A Condorcet winner may not necessarily always exist in a given electorate: it is possible to have a rock, paper, scissors-style cycle, when multiple candidates defeat each other (Rock < Paper < Scissors < Rock). This is called Condorcet's voting paradox, [6] and is analogous to the counterintuitive intransitive dice phenomenon known in ...
At about the time of the American Revolution, two French scholars, Jean-Charles de Borda and Nicolas de Condorcet, pointed out some of plurality's serious problems. A 240-year-long debate ensued.
The pandemic-era 2020 election had the highest ever early vote totals, at more than 101 million, or 63% of all votes cast. But beside 2020, the share of early votes has remained steady since 2012 ...
A voting system complying with the Condorcet loser criterion will never allow a Condorcet loser to win. A Condorcet loser is a candidate who can be defeated in a head-to-head competition against each other candidate. [11] (Not all elections will have a Condorcet loser since it is possible for three or more candidates to be mutually defeatable ...
In voting systems, the Minimax Condorcet method is a single-winner ranked-choice voting method that always elects the majority (Condorcet) winner. [1] Minimax compares all candidates against each other in a round-robin tournament , then ranks candidates by their worst election result (the result where they would receive the fewest votes).
Systems that fail the consistency criterion (such as Instant-runoff voting or Condorcet methods) are susceptible to the multiple-district paradox, a pathological behavior where a candidate can win an election without carrying even a single precinct. [1]