<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif;font-size:13px"><div>In a lot of the more preferred Condorcet methods (e.g. I think all of Schulze, Ranked Pairs, River, Kemeny), if you have, for example, an A>B>C>A cycle, then if, say, A wins then B will automatically finish second and C third (if B wins, C will be second etc.). But you could have a similar number of A>B>C, B>C>A and C>A>B ballots but then also a lot of A>C>B ballots, meaning that in some sense C looks better than B. But as long as this doesn't break the cycle and A wins, then B will still finish second. I think the following example does it:</div><div><br></div><div>11: A>B>C</div><div>10: B>C>A</div><div>10: C>A>B</div><div>8: A>C>B</div><div><br></div><div>A beats B 29:10</div><div>C beats A 20:19</div><div>B beats C
21:18</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not saying these methods are wrong for doing this, but there is an intuitive sense in which C is arguably a better choice than B. So is it:</div><div><br></div><div>1. There is a reasonable Condorcet method that would rank them A>C>B</div><div>2. The intuition that C should finish ahead of B is poorly thought out.</div><div>3. It is in a sense reasonable to think that C should finish ahead of B, but doing so would cause a method to fail certain criteria and end up worse as a result.</div><div>4. Other?</div></div></body></html>