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

[Paul Kislanko]

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.

-----Original Message-----
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
> scenario?

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
above.

Markus Schulze