[EM] The Coming California Single Seat Election

[Adam Tarr]

Forest Simmons wrote:

>Suppose that the (only, as far as you are concerned) issues, i1, i2, and
>i3, are equally important to you, and that (in your opinion) candidate A
>beats candidate B on two out of three, candidate B beats candidate C on
>two out of three, and candidate C beats candidate A on two out of three:
>
>i1: A>B>C
>i2: B>C>A
>i3: C>A>B
>
>Why would you be insane to say that you prefer A to B to C to A?

Well, if that were the case, then your preferences in candidates would make 
sense, but your stances on the issues appear to be schizophrenic.  All 
you've done here is abstracted the argument from candidates to issues.

I guess the question becomes, can you imagine three stances on an issue, 
such that you prefer stance A to stance B, stance B to stance C, and stance 
C to stance A?  I can't see any rational reason for that.

-Adam