On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Don't forget that the no-show paradox is closely related to (in fact is
> an aspect of) the consistency problem. If B is elected, but removing a
> handful of A supporters (say, by disqualifying their ballots) would
> cause A to be elected, can that be a good thing, generally speaking?
> -----
> D- This is getting stranger and stranger.
>
> An election is based on the valid ballots cast and legally counted (by the
> election method being used) --- nothing more and nothing less.
>
> Nothing new since the first election -- in what year (500 B.C. ???) ???
>
> A disqualified ballot is not a ballot (or anything else). B's initial
> apparent win was illegal.
>
>
What do you say to the following legitimate scenario then?
None of the ballots were disqualified, so B's win was legit.
Then two years later the same candidates run as before and all of the
voters vote the same as before, except for a few of A's supporters, who
got stranded some where on election day. As a result, A wins the election.
Forest
