[EM] 3 candidates, few voters, 0-info

[Richard Moore]

MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> >Mike,
> >
> >I don't think your "proof" included 3-way ties and other close 3-way
> >scenarios so I'm not convinced its valid. Maybe you should fully
> >calculate all the probabilities for 3 candidates, 3 voters other than
> >yourself, and zero info about the other voters' preferences, and
> >see how it works out.
>
> You use the word "proof" in quotes, as if I'd used the word. I
> didn't use the word "proof". I said "demonstration". But you're
> right. My demonstration didn't take into acount 3-way ties.

Mike, I didn't mean it that way. I know you didn't use the word, but
quotation marks are sometimes used to indicate a word is being
used loosely by the writer (me in this case).

> I call attention to the fact that you told me that right after I
> told it to you. Yesterday I posted that I'd been unjustifiably
> assuming that all ties were 2=way ties. So now, after I say that,
> you're pointing it out to me.

Well, yes, I had a 3-day backlog of e-mail so I hadn't read your
later message yet when I responded to the earlier one.

> So I'd say that you're a
> little late in refuting that claim, since I posted yesterday that
> I've abandoned that claim.

I apologize for jumping the gun and responding before reading
all my messages.

 -- Richard