[EM] Cycles and Stubborn (but rational) Voters

[Alex Small]

Kevin Venzke said:
> I hope I understood what you meant.  When you say that the three
> candidates each have "well-defined stances on a variety of issues," I
> believe you're only saying that to make it clear that the voters are
> rational in holding cyclic preferences.

I phrased things poorly.  "Well defined stances" would imply that stances
are fixed, and everything I said about candidates maneuvering becomes
irrelevant.

Here's what I should say:

Say that each voter's preference order is a function of the candidates'
stances, and assume that the candidates' stances are in fact objectively
knowable.  (e.g. We don't have to guess which of a candidate's conflicting
statements is his "actual" stance.)  Is it possible that, no matter what
the candidates do, the 3 voters in our hypothetical electorate will always
form a cycle?

I now realize it's an uninteresting question.  The situation I describe
will only arise if the 3 voters have such stubbornly incompatible views
that when the first guy says A>B>C, the other 2 will say B>C>A and C>A>B. 
If there's even a single exception then there is a CW.



Alex