>Well, yes, no and maybe. > >He would be what we might call the "Borda/Condorcet winner", i.e. the >"Condorcet winner" based on the (very likely) insincere ballots intended >for a Borda Count. But it is not so clear that Billy would be a Condorcet >winner on ballots intended for a Condorcet scoring. > >Suppose the voting public were told just before the election that this >time the Condorcet winner would be chosen instead of the Borda Count >winner. Yes, I did realise this after I posted that message. Borda has the unfortunate property of encouraging voters to put their preferred Lesser-Of-Two-Evils candidate first, and the other LOTE candidate last, with the possible consequence that an even 'eviler' candidate could get elected, especially if there is a small field of candidates. Preferential voting (of any kind) is vulnerable to preference swapping deals, and these deals are not always above-board - I'm sure David could give you all the ins and outs of bribing smaller parties with campaign contributions :-) I think that preference swapping would be more likely to influence the result in Borda than in other preferential systems (or even Approval or Cardinal Ratings, which do have the potential for preference swapping).
