Bruce's 99,000 example

[Mike Ossipoff]

In Bruce's 99,000 voter example, the one that divides the voters
into groups of 26,000; 2,000; 20,000; 14,000; 31,000; &
6000: 

Instead of saying that truncation can never steal the
election from a Condorcet winner in Condorcet's method,
I should have said, and meant to say, that it can't
result in the election of someone over whom a majority
have ranked the Condorcet winner.

Bruce, in his example, showed that if only about 31.3% of the
voters rank the Condorcet winner, C, over B, then truncation
by the B voters can steal the election for B. So what?
If only 31.3% of the voters bother to vote C over B, 
then majority rule isn't being violated by electing
B. 

As I said when I replied to Bruce's May 11 example,
Regular champion only happens to choose the Condorcet
winner because the Condorcet winner happens to have
a Plurality. Is that really what any electoral reformer
wants?

I haven't yet checked out Bruce's other examples, but will
comment on them when I do.


Mike



--