This still makes no sense to me, since C has no more a majority in case 2 than it had in case 1.
If mutual majority selects (A B) in case 1 and (A B C) in case 2, it makes no sense at all and should never be mentioned again. -----Original Message----- From: Markus Schulze [mailto:markus.schu...@alumni.tu-berlin.de] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:33 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 > > 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. Kevin Venzke wrote: "Mutual Majority elects {A,B,C}." I wrote: "Mutual majority says nothing in the scenario above." There is no contradiction between Kevin Venzke and me. When the set of candidates is {A,B,C}, then saying that the winner is chosen from {A,B,C} (Kevin Venzke) is the same as saying that mutual majority says nothing (Markus Schulze). Markus Schulze ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info