<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=108.162.249.10</id>
		<title>explain xkcd - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=108.162.249.10"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/108.162.249.10"/>
		<updated>2026-04-17T07:00:37Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.30.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1844:_Voting_Systems&amp;diff=140570</id>
		<title>Talk:1844: Voting Systems</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1844:_Voting_Systems&amp;diff=140570"/>
				<updated>2017-05-31T16:01:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;108.162.249.10: /* Consolidate Information */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Consolidate Information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looks like 2 of us added explanations at the same time. Someone else want to consolidate them and produce a concise explanation?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
~blackhat&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I tried merging our explanations, so there is a small improvement, but there is still some duplicated information. Plus I'm not a native english speaker, so a consolidation by a third editor would be welcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something I don't understand about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem: In the example given, the result of the election is obviously a 3-way tie, where each candidate got exactly equal support.  Surely the Arrow Impossibility Theorem doesn't complain about voting system's inability to intuitively break an exact tie?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I think there is another layer of explanation here.  When Cueball is discussing this - he's talking about voting for which voting system is to be chosen.  The choice is Approval versus Instant Runoff - but isn't Cueball arguing about using a Condorcet method to decide WHICH voting method to choose?  This is emphasised by the mouse-over text which talks about him dynamically changing his choice of ultimate candidate based on the election system chosen - which is exactly the Condorset paradox, but when applied to the selection of which voting system you want rather than the choice of candidate.  Again reinforced by the discussion of &amp;quot;Strong Arrows theorem&amp;quot; which at that same meta-voting level. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.39|162.158.69.39]] 15:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally the idea behind Arrow's Theorem is that you would get different results if you did a vote where the choices were just A or B, B or C, C or A, thus no option wins head to head against the others (Condorset Paradox). An example I recently read was economic policy, and how the options being presented can cause policy to fluctuate wildly in a democracy as the outcome depends on the options compared. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.10|108.162.249.10]] 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>108.162.249.10</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>