[EM] Guarding the Instant Runoff movement (Our Mike is mentioned)

[Bart Ingles]

Markus Schulze wrote:
> Plurality can be defined (and usually is defined in the academic
> literature) on preferential ballots. You claim that as plurality
> depends on LESS than the complete preferences of the voters
> plurality cannot be defined on preferential ballots. But when
> you re-think your argument then you will observe that only when
> plurality depended on MORE than the complete preferences of the
> voters plurality couldn't be defined on preferential ballots.
> I don't think that the fact that you cannot see that plurality can
> also be defined on preferential ballots demonstrates a problem of
> the Condorcet criterion or beat path GMC.

Anything can be defined as anything, but defining Plurality on
preferential ballots doesn't make it the same Plurality as is used in
the U.S. and U.K.  To use two different meanings of the same term
interchangeably is a logical fallacy (equivocation).

The IRV folks make the same mistake with the term 'majority' (e.g.
majority of what?).

Bart