[EM] Correction. Big CS fault?

[James Gilmour]

Craig Carey wrote (in part):
>
> It might seem that in a 6 candidate election, the paper (ABC) is more
> about A,B,C, than about D,E,F. But it can be expanded out like this:
>
> 1(ABC) = ((ABCDEF) + (ABCDFE) + (ABCEDF) + (ABCEFD) + (ABCFDE) + (ABCFED))/6
>
> So every single paper is a paper that candidates can hold an interest
> for.

Craig, this my be YOUR interpretation, but I do not think it is valid.

What an "ABC" voter has told the Returning Officer in a preferential vote election
is:
1.  I give my vote to A.
2.  If A cannot be elected, please transfer my vote to B.
3.  If B cannot be elected, please transfer my vote to C.
4.  If none of A, B and C can be elected and the choice is among D, E and F, I do
not wish to express any view and am content to leave that decision to other voters
who have expressed opinions on the relative merits of D, E and F.

You may argue that by including all possible combinations of D, E and F and by
giving each equal weight (1/6), you have said the same thing, but I do not think
it is the same thing at all.  I cannot say whether it makes any difference to your
voting geometry, as all of that is beyond me, but to me there is a qualitative and
quantitative difference between saying that the ABC voter has dropped out when the
choice falls among D, E and F and saying that the ABC voter can be assumed to have
allocated his or her last preferences equally to all possible combinations of DEF.

James

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em