[EM] I'll try one last time

[Paul Kislanko]

As I explained in my original note, A is anti-abortion, pro-gun control,
anti-capital punishment. B is pro-choice, pro-gun control, and anti-capital
punishment. E is anti-abortion, but anti-gun control and pro-capital
punishment. If A, B and E are all choices, I rank A (3 of 3) > B (2 of 3)
and E (1 of 3).

If A is not in the race, then even though B is more like A, my (I'm the
hypothetical fanatical fundamentalist, here) preference would have to be E>B
just because anti-abortion matters more than the two other issues that E
isn't quite as "pro-life" about as A was.

Almost as important, if you take both A and B out, my ordering of B>C>D
might be different, because then other issues come into play. In any case,
you can't necessarily infer from my A>B>C>D>E that I would prefer B>C if
they were the only choices presented to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com] On Behalf Of
Adam Tarr
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 7:43 PM
To: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] I'll try one last time

The proof is of course impossible, but

>Given a voter's sincere preference for A>B>E when A, B, C, D and E are
>alternatives, and the voter's sincere preference E>B when A is not included
>as an alternative,

Why does the inclusion or exclusion of A change the relative position of E 
and B?

----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info