Tyranny of the Majority

[Martin Harper]

Anthony Simmons wrote:

> Regarding the danger of getting into political debate, I
> think politics has to be considered, if not debated.

I agree entirely: I just didn't want responses from those who believe 
that some specific example that I gave doesn't represent a tyrany of a 
majority. The intricacies of, say, nuclear power, is something that I 
think we could usefully avoid discussing here.

Rob LeGrand wrote:
 > Just my opinion, but it seems to me that when the voted Condorcet
 > winner is not picked, you introduce more instability and potential
 > strategy problems than you should.

I presume your "instability" problem is that, given the existance of a 
Sincere Condorcet Winner, if you elect someone who isn't the SCW, then a 
majority would prefer to replace the person who you elected with the 
SCW. However, a similar phenomenon can happen even if you elect the SCW. 
Consider ye olde low utility Condorcet example, which I'll repeat for 
the benefit of anyone who missed it the first thirty times:

100 A >> B > C
100 C >> B > A
1 B > A = C

Now a majority would prefer to replace B by throwing a coin and electing 
either A or C. So an election method which always elects the SCW is 
still unstable.

I'm unsure about the potential strategy problems: what do you have in mind?