[EM] Tideman and GMC
s349436 at student.uq.edu.au
Sun Feb 6 16:43:13 PST 2000
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've had a week without internet
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Blake Cretney wrote:
> David Catchpole wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, David Catchpole wrote:
> > > Can someone refresh my memory- where a candidate A has a majority beat
> > > path to candidate B and B has a majority beat path to A, does this imply,
> > > or not imply, that a candidate C exists such that A>>B, B>>C, C>>A or
> > > B>>A, A>>C, C>>A? I suspect it does, but I may be wrong...
> > Woops! Obviously, not. The condition of an absolute majority strengthens
> > the relation >> so that this may not be the case, especially given a
> > significant number of voters who are disinterested between some
> > candidates.
> > However, it is true to say that where >> represented "...a
> > simple majority or a tie..." and "majority beat path" were redefined
> > accordingly, the statement below would be true. Consider a vote-
Woops!(again)... I forgot to alter the implications (lazy). What there is
is an implication for every cycle that a sub-cycle of only three
candidates exist (not necessarily one involving A and B). Sorry...
More information about the Election-Methods