I am still not understanding. In the second scenario only A has a majority of voters' support. So how does B get included in the second scenario?
-----Original Message----- From: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com [mailto:election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Venzke Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 4:07 PM To: election-meth...@electorama.com Subject: Re: [EM] "Beatpath GMC" compliance a mistaken standard? Hi Paul, --- En date de : Sam 10.1.09, Paul Kislanko <kisla...@airmail.net> a écrit : > If a majority of voters (with the new voters, and where did > they come from > anyway) You can view them as voters who are debating staying home instead of voting. The issue is whether this can benefit them and whether it matters. > the only candidate with a majority win is A. A criterion more similar to what you have in mind, and which I consider more essential and effective than mutual majority, is this rendition of minimal defense: "If a majority of the voters vote for X and don't vote for Y, then Y must not win." Although, the effect of that criterion is that {A,B} are the possible winners in both scenarios. Kevin Venzke ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
