User talk:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York

Why this page

The possibility of a Cp has again been raised at Talk:New York/Proposed move.

Comments more than welcome... suggest start a new section below. Andrewa (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• What is with the link to WP:BCI? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Typo, should have been WP:BCA. Fixed. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Who said that

As far as I can remember the possibility of a Condorcet paradox (here abbreviated Cp) was first raised by one of the closers in the 2016 panel RM. They raised it in their initial comments after the close of popular !voting and discussion, and later expressed surprise and disappointment that nobody had taken up this possibility.

It has since been raised in the recent pre-RM discussion by at least one editor, who has now commented (with valid criticism... good catch!) above.

Are there others I have missed?

Should we ping the closer who raised the possibility in the first place?

The thing that interests me most is, which of the two possible Cp scenarios did they have in mind? Or was the suggestion just raised because the matter was surprisingly controversial, and meets the most obvious one of the necessary Cp conditions?

There is a widespread misconception that, whenever there are three or more choices and no first-round winner, it's likely or even certain to be a Condorcet paradox. In fact it is possible but most unlikely. My excuse for not presenting this material earlier is just that I saw no reason that anyone would take the claim seriously, and in this I was wrong.

The point being that we should not blame those who raised this for not testing their claim more thoroughly. But, assuming that my logic is sound, we should now put it behind us. Andrewa (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Second try

See User:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York simplified. Andrewa (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)