The first things that stands out about Juhos example is the fact that there is no majority preferring B to C. So one could ask in what way it is a problem for C to win instead of B.
C is the favorite of only one voter? We dont claim to be choosing the winner by Plurality. Condorcet chooses compromise winners too, compromise winners who dont have much 1st place support. Ask any IRVist.
B is CW? Why? With the help of that insignificant number who consider C the best. They (s/he) made B the CW, and it isnt unfair if they can unmake that CW-ship if they want to. So not only is B not majority-supported against C, but B isnt CW independent of the C voter_.
No one here advocates Plurality as the voting system. When you look at that winner in terms of Plurality, it looks awful. But, more fairly, lets estimate SU, by the sincere Borda scores. Then youll find that C has more than half as much estimated SU as B has.
Now, I must admit that I have no idea why those B voters ranked C in 2nd place. But, if we may make a fair guess, we can guess that they (somehow?!) felt that they might need C as compromise, in case B doesnt win. In other words, they were ok with C winning instead of B. C winning instead of B is not unheard of or unacceptable to those voters. In fact it was not even unplanned or unintended by them.
Along with gross misjudgement about compromise-need on the part of the B voters, C won by betrayal,. Betrayal of the B voters who were trying to help C. As I always say at this point, I hope that makes you proud of yourself.
Had the B voters, more realistically, not ranked C, that outcome couldnt have happened.
To summarize, I dont find a problem in Juhos example. If its the best bad -example that can be found for wv in comparison to margins, then it amounts to a testimonial and a tribute to wv, and is accepted as such. <smiley>
Mike Ossipoff
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
