Question

What are the relative merits of the various voting systems? Please make reference to the outcome for the Condorcet winner, and examples were possible.

Answer 1

Example:

	Group of 18	group of12	group of 10	group of 9	group of 4	group of 2
Sameul Adams	2	3	4	1	3	3
Molson	1	5	5	5	5	5
Killians	5	1	2	4	2	4
Guiness	4	4	1	2	4	2
Meister brau	3	2	3	3	1	1

The Condorcet method is the final method for computing the winner. First, for each pair of candidates determine which candidate is preferred by the most voters. For example, here is a comparison between Samuel Adams and Guinness (the number of supporters in the first row represents the number of voters who prefer Samuel Adams to Guinness, and vice-versa for the second row):

	# of supporters
Sameul Adams 43	18+12+9+4
Guinness 12	10+2

Winner for this pair is Samuel Adams

If there is a candidate who 'wins' EVERY comparison with all other candidates, then this candidate is the winner. If there is no such candidate, then there is no Condorcet winner.

Note: you can define a "winning" candidate as that candidate having a number of preferential votes which is greater than or equal to the number of preferential votes of all other candidates when the candidates are compared pairwise. There isn't always a Condorcet winner. If no candidate satisfies this condition for winning, then there is no Condorcet winner.

Merits and comparison of various voting system:Electoral systems are the rules for conducting elections. Comparisons between different systems can focus on different aspects: on suffrage or rules for voter eligibility; on candidate eligibility and the rules governing political parties; on the way elections are scheduled, sequenced, and combined; or on the rules for determining the winner within a given election .

Though there are many different systems, including a large number of combinations of systems, there are two voting systems that are truly not like the other; it can therefore be helpful in viewing the differences among just these two to attain a quick understanding about electoral systems and why the differences are important indeed. The two systems are:

First-past-the-post: A single candidate wins the seat of a single district, county or nation, by getting the most votes in a geographical area.

Proportional voting: The entire outcome of votes in a municipality or nation translates collectively into the outcome of the seats.

Comparison:

Where a geographical connection is automatically incorporated in the electoral outcomes in nations with first-part-the-post (or winner-take-all), there is no certainty about geographical representation in proportional voting. It may play a role with the selection of the candidates, but when geographically inclined voters need to be alert whether candidates are from their own region or area and vote appropriately.

In first-past-the-post, voters are represented by a single representative, whether they voted for the candidate or someone else. With proportional voting, virtually every voter can point to the representative they voted for.

Decisions made in first-past-the-post are won with a majority of the votes by people who won their seats with a majority of the constituents' votes. In effect, this strong dual mechanism diminishes the constituents' importance in the decision; when a seat can be obtained with 51 percent, and a decision can subsequently be made with 51 percent of the council members, the voters' input can be declared as diminished. Decisions made in proportional voting are won with a majority of the votes by the people who got their seats based on the direct distribution of the constituents' votes, virtually a 100 percent translation. In effect, this strong single mechanism (or weak dual mechanism) binds the representative close to his or her voters.

Nations with a first-part-the-post system tend to have a stabilizing factor built in because third-party candidates will have a harder time beating out candidates from Party One and Party Two. Not often will cabinets be based on coalitions and can therefore be considered strong. In general, the two major parties will have no problem absorbing third-party issues as their own, covering any gaps both forgot to cover collectively. Both parties may therefore deliver close to what the voters want. Contrast this with the absence of built-in stability of proportional voting, in which two, sometimes three parties or more, need to cooperate to obtain a workable majority. From this, the character can become visible how one system is more accustomed to being directive whereas the other is more collaborative in nature.

Nations with first-past-the-post have a focus on the center of the constituency. To win a seat, one must appeal to as many voters as possible, and extreme positions do not help in garnering as many votes as possible. Naturally, a weak position in important issues will not help a candidate either, but it can help not saying much about prickly situations. In proportional voting, the focus can follow a party-based policy, and the political message can be quite honest and direct. It is possible that a party obtains seats appealing to voters on the issue of animal rights only. One should recognize how in both systems candidates and representatives handle information differently because the win of the seat is based on a different system.