Mr. Ossipoff wrote- What happened was that, after the polls closed, and after the ballots were counted and the results announced, the ballots were available on disk, as will soon be the case, if it isn't already. Someone noticed thereby that their participation in the election caused the election of someone whom they voted lower than the person who'd have won if they hadn't voted. ---- D- Thanks for the clarification.
How did such *someone* note that it was his/her vote that had such a result ??? By specially marking his/her ballot ??? --- generally yet another election law felony How many voters were in this election (so that such someone could know that it was his/her *unique* vote that changed things) ??? Under 5 ??? 5 or more ??? That is --- was such someone among 2 or more voters who voted the same way ??? See my standard mantra about adding C to existing A and B. Some bad stuff (participation or whatever) may happen to ANY one choice depending on the tiebreaker being used when there are 3 or more choices. More standard mantra for the single winner case- A choice does or does not get a YES majority. A choice is or is not a Condorcet Winner If there is NO CW, then the highest/earliest YES majority will suffice for mere mortals (noting various YES intensity levels -- 50.01 to 100.00 percent) (noting the contingent nature of any 2nd or later choice vote --- being done only if an earlier choice vote does not produce a winner). Standard example- All YES votes 34 ABC 33 BCA 32 CAB 99 No CW Earliest majorities (1st plus 2nd place votes) A 66 B 67 C 65
