[EM] About the demonstration that Plurality fails PSBC

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

For my demonstration that Plurality fails PSBC, I should say something 
abaout PSBC's premise stipulation that the X>Y MPP is not in a cycle of MPPs 
that are all at least as strong as it is.

With voted MPVs in Purality, it's simple: If a majorilty vote for X, then 
there can't be a path of MPVs from Y to X, because no majority vote Y over 
anyone, and no majority vote anyone over X.

But, for the MPPs mentioned in PSBC's premise, let's just say that there is 
no path, from Y to X, of MPPs that are all at least as strong as the X>Y 
MPP. That assumption in no way affects the conlusions that I reached in the 
demonstration.

That's because:
In my demonstration that I posted, I told why, in my example, a majority 
must vote for Y. Obviously that means that Y wins. The matter of whether or 
not there's a path, from Y to X, of MPPs that are all at least as great as 
the X>Y MPP has absolutely no effect on the fact that Y wins. Plurality 
looks at whom people vote for, and I told why a majority vote for Y. The 
matter of whether or not there's a path, from Y to X, of MPPs at least as 
great as the X>Y MPP doesn't decide how people vote. How those Y voters, X 
voters and Z voters vote is constrained by the stipulation that no one 
falsifies a preference. That stipulation requires them to vote for their 
favorite. And because that means that the X and Z voters split their vote in 
half, with 30% for X and 30% fopr Z, and 60% vote for Y, it means that Y 
wins. Regardless of whether or not there's a path, from Y to X, of MPPs that 
are all at least as strong as the X>Y MPP.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/