Invulnerability to Mis-Estimate (was Re: precise definitions)

[Steve Eppley]

Mike O wrote:
-snip-
>With Condorcet's method even if everyone includes an alternative
>that is not the Condorcet winner in their ranking, and no one 
>includes in their ranking any alternative that they like less
>than it, that can't result in victory for that alternative
>if there's a Condorcet winner which is ranked over it by a
>majority.
>
>I call this property Invulnerability to Mis-Estimate. It's
>obviously important. Say there's a progressive candidate, like
>Nader, and say that, for some reason, he isn't getting good media
>coverage. Say that makes it look like Clinton is Condorcet winner,
>the candidate who is the best result that the progressives can
>get. So say the Nader voters consequently all include Clinton
>in their ranking, but those who prefer Clinton to Nader don't
>bother ranking Nader, since they are sure from the media that
>they don't need him. This can create a circular tie. With
>Copeland or Regular Champion that can give the election to
>Clinton. With Condorcet's method, either plain condorcet or
>Smith//Condorcet, that can't happen.

Is this the old 46/20/34 example?  If so, then I think you wrote 
Clinton above where you meant Dole (2nd to last sentence).  But I 
doubt that old example is what you intend here.

Whatever, I'm confused because this example is too incomplete to
illustrate the Invulnerability to M-E property.  Who is the sincere
beats-all winner here?  Nader?  And Clinton is the alternative 
mis-estimated to be the beats-all winner?  I'm not sufficiently 
fluent to be able to see the property in action without a more 
complete example in front of me, showing numbers.

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)