[EM] SFC definition supports partial preference relations

[James Green-Armytage]

Jobst Heitzig <heitzig-j at web.de> writes:
>Anna should be allowed to
>express A>B, B>C, and C>A, meaning that when the final choice is between
>A and B she would like to have A, when it's between B and C she would
>like to have B, and when it's between C and A she would like to have A.

	I'm sorry, but I still agree with conventional wisdom in saying that
intransitive preference relations, like the one you describe above, are
irrational. And I feel no need to modify a voting method to accomodate
irrational preference relations.
	Can you give an example of a situation where it would be rational to have
intransitive preference relations between multiple options?

	(Note: it's "against the rules" to justify intransitivity via
diachronicity, that is, a transitive preference relation which changes in
between rounds of voting, leading to an intransitive expression. I think
it's fair enough to assume that someone fills out their ballot at a single
"moment" in time, as far as consistency of preference relations are
concerned.)

my best,
James