Simple Nonmonotonic Example

[Mike Ositoff]

> 
> The problem with ALL examples with changed votes is that there is only ONE
> election at a time-- NOT continuous replays of the election with some voters
> knowing how other voters have voted so that they can change their votes and
> produce strange new results.
> 
> Thus, most, if not all, of the various criteria involving changed votes are
> totally irrelevant for election reform purposes.

My example didn't require those 3 voters to know how others were
voting. They merely wanted to vote against someone, to defeat him,
and instead, they elected him, defeating the CW. That's irrelevant,
when the result is affected in a way opposite to what you did?

> 
> I mention again that any election reform method operates on the votes that are
> counted on election day- NOT on election day plus one, plus two, etc.

No, but they're reported on the day after election day, and that's
when the big embarrassment will occur if 2 successive elections
are nonmonotonically related:

"President Moe failed in his re-election bid. The only difference
in the ballots this time & last time is that this time some
voters ranked Moe higher, and some ranked Shemp lower. 
President-elect Shemp gave his acceptance speech at 1:00 a.m.
Eastern Time."

Mike Ossipoff


> 
>