[EM] language/framing quibble

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

rob brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm 
> <km-elmet at broadpark.no <mailto:km-elmet at broadpark.no>> wrote:
> 
>     Consider Condorcet. One of the greater problems with plurality is
>     vote-splitting, which favors minorities since it destroys a center
>     that many think is good but only a few think is great. Thus,
>     adopting Condorcet would help the majority, not minorities at the
>     expense of the majority, ...
> 
>  
> First, I think you are misusing the words "majority" and "minority" here 
> (as is common).  Personally I think they have no meaning unless there 
> are only two candidates (and there were never any other potential 
> candidates).

I'd say that one could generalize the above to coalitions. Then a method 
favors a majority if it gives more power to a coalition supported by a 
majority, and favors a minority if it gives more power to a coalition 
supported by a minority.

One example I would use to argue that Plurality can swing in the 
direction of a minority is the 1987 South Korean election. The two 
democratic groups split the vote, giving the election to the general who 
supported an earlier coup.

I'll grant that if we use your definition, that example isn't applicable 
- since there were three parties in all.