[EM] "Beatpath GMC" compliance a mistaken standard?

[Paul Kislanko]

The second scenario is 

> 26 A>B
> 25 B>A
> 49 C
> 5 A

which has 105 voters. 56 include A on any ballot and that's a majority. 51
include B, and that's not a majority. 

So how is B a possible winner under the second scenario? 

-----Original Message-----
From: election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Venzke
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 4:07 PM
To: election-methods at electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] "Beatpath GMC" compliance a mistaken standard?

Hi Paul,

--- En date de : Sam 10.1.09, Paul Kislanko <kislanko at airmail.net> a écrit :
> If a majority of voters (with the new voters, and where did
> they come from
> anyway)

You can view them as voters who are debating staying home instead of
voting. The issue is whether this can benefit them and whether it matters.

> the only candidate with a majority win is A.

A criterion more similar to what you have in mind, and which I consider
more essential and effective than mutual majority, is this rendition of
minimal defense:

"If a majority of the voters vote for X and don't vote for Y, then Y must 
not win."

Although, the effect of that criterion is that {A,B} are the possible
winners in both scenarios.

Kevin Venzke


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