[EM] Re: Kislanko and Circular Ties:

[Alex Small]

Donald Davison said:
> Kislanko: "No, nothing is wrong. Some set of voters said A>B and another
> set of voters said C>A and a distinctly different set said B>C. It is
> only when a method counts the ballots that we get a "paradox" that says
> as many voted A>B>C as voted C>A>B."
>
> Donald:  If most of the `A' voters vote A>B then it follows that most of
> the `B' voters would vote B>A, but if instead, most of the `B' voters
> vote B>C, then that is a flaw produced most likely by uninformed voters,
> because informed voters would favor candidates whose supporters favor
> their candidates.

We finally get to the heart of Donald's claim that cycles are produced by
uninformed voters.

So, let's say a third of the electorate votes A>B>C.  What is so
irrational about another third voting B>C>A?  The second faction agrees
that B>C, but disagree over the relative merits of A and B.  But Donald
seems to imply that the people who put B first are irrational to vote
B>C>A.  I don't see how that's so irrational.

Anyway, what if another third of the electorate votes C>A>B?  They agree
with the first faction that A>B but they disagree over C.  They agree with
the second faction that C>A but they disagree over B.  Really, I'm having
a hard time seeing what's so irrational about this electorate.



Alex