Donald Davison said: > Kislanko: "No, nothing is wrong. Some set of voters said A>B and another > set of voters said C>A and a distinctly different set said B>C. It is > only when a method counts the ballots that we get a "paradox" that says > as many voted A>B>C as voted C>A>B." > > Donald: If most of the `A' voters vote A>B then it follows that most of > the `B' voters would vote B>A, but if instead, most of the `B' voters > vote B>C, then that is a flaw produced most likely by uninformed voters, > because informed voters would favor candidates whose supporters favor > their candidates.
We finally get to the heart of Donald's claim that cycles are produced by uninformed voters. So, let's say a third of the electorate votes A>B>C. What is so irrational about another third voting B>C>A? The second faction agrees that B>C, but disagree over the relative merits of A and B. But Donald seems to imply that the people who put B first are irrational to vote B>C>A. I don't see how that's so irrational. Anyway, what if another third of the electorate votes C>A>B? They agree with the first faction that A>B but they disagree over C. They agree with the second faction that C>A but they disagree over B. Really, I'm having a hard time seeing what's so irrational about this electorate. Alex ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
