tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29536003.post3946202609378900738..comments2023-12-24T08:35:08.509-05:00Comments on Pissed Off: What Makes A Fair Election?Pissedoffteacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07924089808582137198noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29536003.post-42198757124017197612008-02-23T14:34:00.000-05:002008-02-23T14:34:00.000-05:00That is the whole premise, that there is no system...That is the whole premise, that there is no system that satisfies all 4 criteria.<BR/>A plurality will sometimes violate 2 and 4<BR/>Top-two ruhn off will sometimes violate 2, 3, 4<BR/>Sequential run-off will sometimes violate 2, 3, 4<BR/>Borda count will sometimes violate 1, 2, 4<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. <BR/>pairwise will sometimes violate 4Pissedoffteacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07924089808582137198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29536003.post-14678061042673697632008-02-23T11:09:00.000-05:002008-02-23T11:09:00.000-05:00I did not confuse plurality with majority. Perhaps...I did not confuse plurality with majority. Perhaps my explanation was unclear.<BR/><BR/>I listed a scenario involving three candidates: A, B, and C. None of the candidates has a majority of first-place votes. However, a majority prefer A to B, a majority prefer B to C, and a majority prefer C to A.<BR/><BR/>Suppose that A is declared the winner. Then B is an irrelevant alternative. This means that the result should have been the same if the race were between A and C only. But nine of the 15 voters (a majority) prefer C to A, thus C should win the two-person contest. This is a contradiction, so A cannot be the winner under criteria (1) and (4).<BR/><BR/>Similarly, B cannot be declared the winner, and C cannot be declared the winner. It is not possible to select a winner in a manner that is consistent with both the majority criterion and IIA.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09232747857608296294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29536003.post-63654998075266901832008-02-23T09:12:00.000-05:002008-02-23T09:12:00.000-05:00David, you are confusing a plurality and a majorit...David, you are confusing a plurality and a majority. A majority winner must get more than 50% of the votes while a plurality winner is the one who receives the most votes.<BR/><BR/>If you study the different types of elections systems, all of the above are possible, and in fact happen. I know my post did not go into enough detail to fully explain the different systems.Pissedoffteacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07924089808582137198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29536003.post-76422050493233754832008-02-22T23:36:00.000-05:002008-02-22T23:36:00.000-05:00In fact, (1) and (4) are inconsistent. Suppose tha...In fact, (1) and (4) are inconsistent. Suppose that voters cast their ballots as follows:<BR/><BR/>6 votes for A > B > C<BR/><BR/>5 votes for B > C > A<BR/><BR/>4 votes for C > A > B<BR/><BR/>Then A cannot be the winner, because a majority prefer C to A, and C would win if B withdrew from the race. B cannot be the winner, because a majority prefer A to B. Finally, C cannot be the winner, because a majority prefer B to C.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09232747857608296294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29536003.post-79028987568522657712008-02-21T10:44:00.000-05:002008-02-21T10:44:00.000-05:00This lesson just explains how different voting sys...This lesson just explains how different voting systems are set up and the mathematics that are involved in setting them up. No one says it is fair and Arrow proved that it is impossible to have a totally fair election. <BR/><BR/>Winston Churchill said:<BR/><BR/>No one pretends taht democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those that have been tried from time to time.Pissedoffteacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07924089808582137198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29536003.post-67385631326196824742008-02-21T08:29:00.000-05:002008-02-21T08:29:00.000-05:00WE actually don't have a democracy, we have a form...WE actually don't have a democracy, we have a form of republic. They forget to explain that in schools today.Son of Pissed Offhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04498322008142410011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29536003.post-38558544899318340152008-02-21T01:55:00.000-05:002008-02-21T01:55:00.000-05:00Not exactly true, some of the Democratic president...Not exactly true, some of the Democratic presidential candidates stand no chance in competing with the popular Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Do you remember Mike Gravel in the debate? It is definitely unfair because the media give all (well 99% of media time) attention to these two candidates.<BR/>Mike Gravel simply ran out of money and had to drop out. The U.S.A. government and ways in the election is definitely unfair, and the big guys are the only one who stand the chance. Good people never win in this country, and has it always been, people vote for the lesser evil.<BR/><BR/>Besides all that, our vote don't even count for much at all. Representative government is not a democratic government.<BR/><BR/>This is not a democracy. This country has become a capitalistic, bureaucratic, consumerist, republicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com