Timeline for What if no Republican candidate gets a majority of delegates for president?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2023 at 6:41 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @Douglas "100% of voters agree..." is unsupported. No one has voted "Ghandi would be an acceptable compromise candidate". For all you know everyone but the 10% considers Ghandi an unacceptable choice, and just finds the third party even worse. | |
| Sep 3, 2023 at 3:29 | comment | added | bharring | But then you introduce the theory that you must convince your voters to not express a secondary choice, or failing that to have a secondary choice that has no support. Whichever way you go from there, it goes wrong. Read up on the Arrow proof - this has all been hashed out before. | |
| Sep 2, 2023 at 20:29 | comment | added | Douglas | @LawnmowerMan Read up on the Condorcet criterion. In either two-candidate subset, Hitler vs Ghandi or Stalin vs Ghandi, Ghandi would win 55% to 45%. 100% of voters agree that Ghandi is at least a decent compromise candidate. I would argue that any election system that does not have Ghandi win in this scenario is manifestly unfair. | |
| Sep 2, 2023 at 6:47 | comment | added | Lawnmower Man | @Acccumulation sounds like a perfectly fair election to me. The problem isn't the elimination, it's the voters. I won't own that. If you allowed Ghandi to remain in the election and he somehow won, then a lot of people will decide that the election is manifestly unfair, no? | |
| Sep 2, 2023 at 5:37 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @Acccumulation Well what is Gandhi expecting when 90% of the voters prefer not-Gandhi? | |
| Sep 2, 2023 at 4:27 | comment | added | Acccumulation | @LawnmowerMan If the candidates are Hitler, Stalin, and Gandhi, and 45% of voters really hate Stalin, and mildly prefer Hitler to Gandhi, and 45% really hate Hitler and mildly prefer Stalin, and 10% prefer Gandhi, then Gandhi gets eliminated the first round. | |
| Sep 2, 2023 at 2:10 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @Gantendo Arrow's theorem is, succinctly put, that the system is either unfair or a (de facto) dictatorship. Yours would obviously be the latter kind. | |
| Sep 1, 2023 at 23:25 | comment | added | user43134 | Any voting system with just 1 voter is completely fair. | |
| Sep 1, 2023 at 21:17 | comment | added | supercat | @bharring: There are no completely fair voting systems that allow participants to fully express their preferences in a way that will be considered, but approval voting satisfies the "honesty" criterion. If someone likes Bob better than Charlie, but things Alex is better than both, and David is inferior to both, the voter might achieve the best results by voting for both Bob and Charlie, neither Bob nor Charlie, or for Bob but not Charlie, but would never get a better outcome by voting for Charlie but not Bob, than by one of the other options. | |
| Sep 1, 2023 at 20:25 | comment | added | bharring | That's why it's a common rule in runoffs, but it's not universal. It's probably my favorite, but remember that it's proven there are no completely fair voting systems. | |
| Sep 1, 2023 at 19:21 | comment | added | Lawnmower Man | The simplest rule is to always eliminate the candidate with the least votes. Most people would judge this as "fair" and it guarantees that there are never more than N-1 rounds, given N candidates. | |
| Sep 1, 2023 at 13:44 | history | answered | bharring | CC BY-SA 4.0 |