[EM] Herve Moulin's proof not really a proof

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Nicholas,

you wrote (13 June 2012):

> Main example: A>D>B>C
> Case 1: A>D>B>C
> Case 2: D>B>A>C
> Case 3: B>C>D>A
> Case 4: A>B>D>C
> Case 4a: C>A>B>D
> Case 4b: B>C>A>D

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1998-October/002346.html

In case 4, candidate A is elected. When we add 6 A > C > B > D voters,
then we get case 4a. The participation criterion says that candidate A
must be elected. But you write that candidate C is elected in case 4a.

Markus Schulze