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

Paul Kislanko kislanko at airmail.net
Sat Jan 10 21:04:05 PST 2009

This still makes no sense to me, since C has no more a majority in case 2
than it had in case 1.

If mutual majority selects (A B) in case 1 and (A B C) in case 2, it makes
no sense at all and should never be mentioned again. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Schulze [mailto:markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de] 
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:33 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
> 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.

Kevin Venzke wrote: "Mutual Majority elects {A,B,C}."
I wrote: "Mutual majority says nothing in the scenario

There is no contradiction between Kevin Venzke and me.

When the set of candidates is {A,B,C}, then saying that
the winner is chosen from {A,B,C} (Kevin Venzke) is the
same as saying that mutual majority says nothing (Markus

Markus Schulze

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list