1 / 12

Voting

Voting. Part 3. Condorcet Winner (again). 1980 New York senate race 45% Al D’Amato 44% Elizabeth Holtzman 11% Jacob Javitz So D’Amato was the (plurality) winner, and won the senate seat. This is all the information that could be found in ballots.

lachelle
Télécharger la présentation

Voting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Voting Part 3

  2. Condorcet Winner (again) • 1980 New York senate race 45% Al D’Amato 44% Elizabeth Holtzman 11% Jacob Javitz • So D’Amato was the (plurality) winner, and won the senate seat. • This is all the information that could be found in ballots. • But exit polls revealed something interesting…

  3. Condorcet Winner (review) To find the Condorcet Winner when there are 3 choices A,B,C: • Put each pair of candidates in a head-to-head match-up. • For each pair, decide which candidate most voters prefer. • If one candidate defeats all other candidates, then it is the Condorcet Winner.

  4. Use the following exit polls to find the Condorcet winner: • [D’Amato] • [Holtzman] • [Javitz]

  5. Condorcet Winner Criterion • A voting system satisfies the Condorcet Winner Criterion if the Condorcet winner, when there is one, wins the election under the given voting system. • So the 1980 New York Senate race shows plurality voting does not satisfy the Condorcet Winner Criterion. • But a “fair” voting system should satisfy Condorcet Winner Criterion. • Conclusion: Plurality voting is unfair. Marquis de Condorcet, 1743-1794

  6. Who is the Condorcet Winner in the election represented in the table? • [Amy] • [Ben] • [Cal] • [There is none.]

  7. Condorcet’s Paradox • What we’ve just seen is that it is possible that there is no Condorcet Winner. 1. Amy beats Ben in head-to-head race. 2. Ben beats Cal in head-to-head race. 3. Cal beats Amy in head-to-head race. • In this election, 2/3 of the public prefers somebody else to the any particular candidate. • So no matter which candidate is picked, the majority opinion is thwarted. • Condorcet discovered this paradox in 18th century.

  8. Borda Count (revisted) • Recall that in the Borda Count, when we have 3 candidates, we give: 2 points for each 1st place vote 1 point for each 2nd place vote 0 points for each 3rd place vote • Used in the French Academy of Sciences to elect members until Napoleon became its president in 1801. • Used today in many situations, including AP Football Poll. Jean Charles Borda 1733-1799

  9. Use the Borda Count to find the winner. • [Amy] • [Ben] • [Cal] • [No winner]

  10. Manipulating the Borda Count • Amy won our election, leaving the 4 supporters of Cal disappointed because they really, really don’t like Amy. • These supporters know they can’t change the votes of the other 6 people. • So they know that Cal couldn’t have won. • But they really wish Amy had not won. • Could they have changed the outcome just by changing their own 4 votes?

  11. Suppose the voting bloc of 4 changes votes from 1st table to 2nd table. Who wins in the 2nd table under the Borda count? • [Amy] • [Ben] • [Cal] • [No winner]

  12. Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives • The 4 people who didn’t want Amy to win, voted against their interests (Cal) and put Ben at the top of the ballot. This caused Amy to lose. • So their candidate Cal lost, but so did their least favorite candidate. • Thus the Borda Count fails the following test: Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives. In a fair election it should be impossible for a nonwinning candidate (Ben) to change to winner unless at least one voter reverses the order in which they listed Ben and the original winner (Amy). • So the Borda count is unfair (it does not satisfy the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives).

More Related