5th June 2018, 1:49 AM
I think you misunderstood. In reality, you actually agree with the notion. "Independence of irrelevant alternatives" refers to election spoiling, such as someone voting for an independent 3rd party, thus changing the results that otherwise would have gone to a certain candidate. You know, the 2000 election. That is what is meant, and I think you would be in favor of an electoral system that did it's best to reduce it.
That's why I am starting to think a mixture of ranked voting with cardinal voting would be superior to simply any version of ranked voting. Cardinal voting allows someone to rank "getting punched in the face" as a sufficiently worse option than getting $10 and getting $11, and not just "the third place option".
That's why I am starting to think a mixture of ranked voting with cardinal voting would be superior to simply any version of ranked voting. Cardinal voting allows someone to rank "getting punched in the face" as a sufficiently worse option than getting $10 and getting $11, and not just "the third place option".
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)