[EM] Juho's example

[Michael Ossipoff]

The first things that stands out about Juho’s example is the fact that there 
is no majority preferring B to C. So one could ask in what way it is a 
problem for C to win instead of B.

C is the favorite of only one voter? We don’t claim to be choosing the 
winner by Plurality. Condorcet chooses compromise winners too, compromise 
winners who don’t have much 1st place support. Ask any IRVist.

B is CW? Why? With the help of that  insignificant number who consider C the 
best. They (s/he)  made B the CW, and it isn’t unfair if they can unmake 
that CW-ship if they want to. So not only is B not majority-supported 
against C, but B isn’t CW independent of the C voter_.

No one here advocates Plurality as the voting system. When you look at that 
winner in terms of Plurality, it looks awful. But, more fairly, let’s 
estimate SU, by the sincere Borda scores. Then you’ll find that C has more 
than half as much estimated SU as B has.

Now, I must admit that I have no idea why those B voters ranked C in 2nd 
place. But, if we may make a fair guess, we can guess that they (somehow?!) 
felt that they might need C as compromise, in case B doesn’t win. In other 
words, they were ok with C winning instead of B. C winning instead of B is 
not unheard of or unacceptable to those voters. In fact it was not even 
unplanned or unintended by them.

Along with gross misjudgement about compromise-need on the part of the B  
voters, C won by betrayal,. Betrayal of the B voters who were trying to help 
C. As I always say at this point, I hope that makes you proud of yourself.

Had the B voters, more realistically, not ranked C, that outcome couldn’t 
have happened.

To summarize, I don’t find a problem in Juho’s example. If it’s the best bad 
-example that can be found for wv in comparison to margins, then it amounts 
to a testimonial and a tribute to wv, and is accepted as such. <smiley>

Mike Ossipoff