In a message dated 10/11/04 3:26:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Actually, Paul understood that very well. If you recall, his original
statement was "this is why it's so hard to explain" to non-specialists.>>
I answered the question you asked in the message I quoted. I
At 12:36 PM -0700 10/11/04, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
Hi Paul,
Perot is the clear Condorcet winner, but that cannot be the right result. If
you replace those names with A, B, C the result looks ok.
I suspect the issue with your example is that:
45% Bush > Perot
10% Perot
45% Clinton > Perot
is int
data the pollsters collect.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 7:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Reply to Paul Kislanko
In a message dated 10/6/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You may
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 7:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [EM] Reply to Paul Kislanko
>
> In a message dated 10/6/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > You may not take it that Paul has conceded anythin
In a message dated 10/6/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> You may not take it that Paul has conceded anything
> since nobody's ever answered the original question.
>
> 5 of 9 voters voted C>A.
>
> Paul's question is how can anyone justify A's win.
>
> No one has addressed that. Until they do, ad ho
