[EM] Blake's margins arguments - CORRECTION
AVnow
avnow at fgn.net
Tue Feb 18 17:00:56 PST 2003
I wrote:
> Let's take another example:
> 101: A
> 1: BAC
> 101: CBA
>
> In this case, B defeats A 102>101, A defeats C 102>101, and C defeats
> B 101>1 (with 101 abstaining). B>A and A>C are victories by majority,
> but very weak victories. C>B is a non-majority win, but a resounding
> victory. Just to get to a three-way tie, we must assume that all 101
> abstaining votes really meant to choose B over C (and that's one
> possibility out of 2^101 or over
> 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, if we force each one take a
> preference).
Correction: Just to get a three-way tie, we must assume that 100 of the
101 abstaining votes really meant to choose B over C, with 1 choosing C
over B. That's still a far greater assumption than any voting system
should be making, so my overall argument here is still very strong.
Tom McIntyre
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list