[EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set

[Russ Paielli]

Paul Kislanko kislanko-at-airmail.net |EMlist| wrote:
> We're mixing terms and contexts again.
> 
> One can define majority to include all eligible voters, in which case it is
> entirely possible that no alternative achieves a majority because fewer than
> 50 % of elegible voters participate in the election. No matter what method
> is used to pick the selection of a majority of participants, it cannot be
> said that the winner has been a elected by a majority.

My sentiments exactly.

The usage of the word "majority" by some here seems a bit inconsistent 
to me. In a pairwise race, the majority that seems to matter to them is 
*not* a majority of voters who actually *voted* on that particular 
pairwise race -- but rather a majority of the total number of voters who 
voted for other pairwise races for the same office. In other words, a 
majority is defined relative to the *potential* rather than the *actual* 
number of voters.

But wait just a minute. If the majority that really matters is relative 
to the *potential* number of voters, then why isn't it defined relative 
to the total number of voters who voted in the entire election, 
including those who did not vote at all on that particular office? Or 
why is it not defined relative to the total number of *registered* 
voters? Better yet, why is it not defined relative to the total number 
of *eligible* voters, registered or not?

To put it another way, when a voter intentionally abstains from voting 
in a pairwise race, why is that voter still relevant in any way to the 
correct interpretation of the score of that race? That's a rhetorical 
question, because I'll bet that any answer will simply be a rationalization.

--Russ