[EM] "Beatpath GMC" compliance a mistaken standard?
kislanko at airmail.net
Sat Jan 10 18:27:06 PST 2009
I ask again, in the post I replied to, it was claimed mutual majority
selected (A,B,C) in the 2nd case. I wondered how that was possible, and you
agree that it isn't.
From: Markus Schulze [mailto:markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 8:06 PM
To: kislanko at airmail.net; election-methods at electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] "Beatpath GMC" compliance a mistaken standard?
Dear Paul Kislanko,
you wrote (10 Jan 2009):
> 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
Mutual majority doesn't ask: "How many voters rank
all the candidates of set S?"
Mutual majority asks: "How many voters rank
all the candidates of set S ahead of all the
candidates outside the set S?"
There are 56 voters who rank candidate A. But
there are only 31 voters who rank candidate A
ahead of every other candidate. Therefore,
mutual majority says nothing in the scenario
More information about the Election-Methods