I hope it is on-topic here to note that options 1, 3, and 4 formed a Condorcet preference cycle. So these *do* occur in the wild! And not for low-ranked obscure options either.
The winning option 7 has an arrow with a 1 on it to option 4, which is as razor-thin as you can get. If that arrow had been reversed (which could be done by switching the order of two adjacent options on TWO BALLOTS) the winning option would have been in an enormous preference cycle of FIVE (5) options! If the winning option in an election is part of a preference cycle, then it (by definition) has the property that there exists some other option that a majority of the voters preferred. In some elections that is unavoidable: we need to pick one DPL, and if they're in a cycle so be it; if there's a tie we can just toss a coin. But in others, like the RMS GR, it seems like it would be a rather bad property and we'd be better off treating it as FD and trying again later. If we're going to stick with Condorcet (and this election certainly suggests taking a fresh look at our voting system) I think we might want to consider giving the Secretary the power to declare some elections as winner-in-cycle-means-FD before the election is held, presumably based on some set of reasonable criteria. --Barak A. Pearlmutter
