[EM] Jurij's example

[LAYTON Craig]

>Well, yes, no and maybe.
>
>He would be what we might call the "Borda/Condorcet winner", i.e. the
>"Condorcet winner" based on the (very likely) insincere ballots intended
>for a Borda Count.  But it is not so clear that Billy would be a Condorcet
>winner on ballots intended for a Condorcet scoring. 
>
>Suppose the voting public were told just before the election that this
>time the Condorcet winner would be chosen instead of the Borda Count
>winner.

Yes, I did realise this after I posted that message.  Borda has the
unfortunate property of encouraging voters to put their preferred
Lesser-Of-Two-Evils candidate first, and the other LOTE candidate last, with
the possible consequence that an even 'eviler' candidate could get elected,
especially if there is a small field of candidates.

Preferential voting (of any kind) is vulnerable to preference swapping
deals, and these deals are not always above-board - I'm sure David could
give you all the ins and outs of bribing smaller parties with campaign
contributions :-)

I think that preference swapping would be more likely to influence the
result in Borda than in other preferential systems (or even Approval or
Cardinal Ratings, which do have the potential for preference swapping).