Blake Cretney wrote (directly to me):
> >><SNIP>
> >Example: 2 voters with rankings ABC, CBA. I would say B was a
> >reasonable compromise. Presumably you would insist on a draw.
>
> According to what I've been advocating, this should be a draw. The
> winner should be chosen by picking one of the two ballots at random
> and using its first choice, so either A or C will win with a 50%
> chance of each. The random ballot tie-breaker is used to obey
> GITC.
In my example above I could understand a 3-way draw, but not a
two-way between A and C. This seems more intuitive than most technical
criteria, like GITC.
In a UK scenario this situation would mostly likely arise when the
candidates represent a 1-D spectrum of views, with B the compromise.
In this case B is justifiable. A and C are not.
I think most criteria will have special cases where they are
counter-intuitive. We need to focus on 'typical' cases, which seems
to depend on where you live.
Cheers.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but apparently I have to do this. :-(
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer
and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of
any other person or official body.
