[EM] Sincere winners

[Craig Carey]

At 01-09-22 08:21 AM +1000 Saturday, Craig Layton wrote:
 >Forest,
...
 >
 >
 >I expect you're right, but isn't the Condorcet Criterion phrased something
 >like "if there is a sincere Condorcet winner, and all voters vote sincerely,
 >then the sincere Condorcet winner must win"?





If it was such a thing, then such a definition would not be forthcoming, and
you would be suggesting a return to the "dog ate it" style of missing
proof-ism that the list was experiencing last year (when Mike Ositoff was
writing). If free and interested in furthering my knowledge, then erhaps you
would e-mail to me your equations defining when exactly some vectors of
numbers (not methods, obviously, given your text), are "sincere".

What suppose one of the things you would have us call a "voter", was part of
a council and was instructed by a superior (an Australian, "you are against
us if not with us, son"), to have no explicit opinion on whether the
markings on his ballot paper were sincere or not?. What then would be the
equations of the permitted implicit opinions of that 'thing' ?.

They try to use the Smith Set to patch it all up, sometimes.