I wrote:
Let's take another example:Correction: Just to get a three-way tie, we must assume that 100 of the 101 abstaining votes really meant to choose B over C, with 1 choosing C over B. That's still a far greater assumption than any voting system should be making, so my overall argument here is still very strong.
101: A
1: BAC
101: CBA
In this case, B defeats A 102>101, A defeats C 102>101, and C defeats B 101>1 (with 101 abstaining). B>A and A>C are victories by majority, but very weak victories. C>B is a non-majority win, but a resounding victory. Just to get to a three-way tie, we must assume that all 101 abstaining votes really meant to choose B over C (and that's one possibility out of 2^101 or over 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, if we force each one take a preference).
Tom McIntyre
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
