Comment on well duh.

• kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  In this context, not everyone’s first choice, but the one that the majority could support against each other candidate individually.

  For example if you have candidates A, B, and C, with 35%, 31%, and 34% of the 1st choice votes respectively. B gets eliminated. Only 50% of their voters put down a second choice, and their 2nd choice votes are almost evenly split between A and C, but slightly favor C. So lA and C end up with 49% and 51% of the remaining votes, respectively and C wins.

  However, basically everyone that didn’t put B as their first choice did put them as their second choice because they did NOT like their ideologically opposing candidate at all). So, if A hadn’t run, the results would have been B with 65% of the vote and C with 35%. If C hadn’t run, the results would have been B with 66% and A with 34%. Either way, B would have won by a landslide in those races, but instead B got eliminated in the first round which gave C the narrow win.

  It seems like that maximum number of people would have at least approved of the outcome if B had won. Instead, only a minority of people people’s votes ended up deciding the winner and everyone else sees the outcome as unfavorable.

  This is I prefer approval voting. Two candidates never have to have split support and there is no worry about unsure elimination. So long as everyone honestly votes for whomever they would approve of, the candidate with the most support will win.

  source

  • explodicle@local106.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    So Condorcet winner, then?

    source

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Sort of. In this case, yes, but there’s not always a condorcet winner in any given election. I was more using the condercet winner criterion here (without knowing the term, thank you!) as an example to show how B was actually really popular despite being eliminated in Ranked Choice. But it’s not always about being the most popular candidate against every other individual candidate.

      source
• rockSlayer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  For the person to be squeezed out, a majority of voters would need to have them as their second choice, but not meet the threshold of first choice votes to continue. They would be considered the preferred compromise candidate, but they get squeezed out of the race and polarizing the second round

  source

  • explodicle@local106.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Sorry if I’m being dense, but I’m asking what “most preferred” literally means, not what would happen under RCV. Do you mean like the majority criterion or the Condorcet winner criterion?

    source

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      By most preferred, I mean the most number of votes in favor of the person. That person can get squeezed out if they receive a majority of second place votes.

      source