[EM] Symmetric cyclic AB+BC+CA rule rejects STV

[Bart Ingles]

Craig Carey wrote:
> The idea might be a lot sounder if [Mr Saari] had instead expected
>   invariance of the winners in 3 candidate election had 6, not 3, papers been
>   added. I.e. these papers: ABC, BCA, CAB, ACB, CBA, BAC.


In that case you have no need to look for rotational symmetry -- you
already have 3 cases of reflectional symmetry:  ABC cancels CBA, BCA
cancels ACB, etc.