Suppose that the (only, as far as you are concerned) issues, i1, i2, and i3, are equally important to you, and that (in your opinion) candidate A beats candidate B on two out of three, candidate B beats candidate C on two out of three, and candidate C beats candidate A on two out of three:
i1: A>B>C i2: B>C>A i3: C>A>B
Why would you be insane to say that you prefer A to B to C to A?
Well, if that were the case, then your preferences in candidates would make sense, but your stances on the issues appear to be schizophrenic. All you've done here is abstracted the argument from candidates to issues.
I guess the question becomes, can you imagine three stances on an issue, such that you prefer stance A to stance B, stance B to stance C, and stance C to stance A? I can't see any rational reason for that.
-Adam
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
