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.
-----Original Message----- From: Markus Schulze [mailto:markus.schu...@alumni.tu-berlin.de] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 8:06 PM To: kisla...@airmail.net; election-meth...@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 > > which has 105 voters. 56 include A on any ballot > and that's a majority. 51 include B, and that's > not a majority. > > So how is B a possible winner under the second > scenario? Mutual majority doesn't ask: "How many voters rank all the candidates of set S?" Mutual majority asks: "How many voters rank all the candidates of set S ahead of all the candidates outside the set S?" There are 56 voters who rank candidate A. But there are only 31 voters who rank candidate A ahead of every other candidate. Therefore, mutual majority says nothing in the scenario above. Markus Schulze ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info