Hallo, usually, the term "majority winner" refers to a candidate who is strictly preferred to every other candidate by a majority of the voters.
However, IRV supporters usually use the term "majority winner" for a candidate A who can win a majority (or at least half of the votes) in a runoff between candidate A and some other candidates. Question: Who can win a majority (or at least half of the votes) in a runoff between himself and some other candidates? Answer: Everybody but a Condorcet loser. So when IRV supporters say that IRV "always elects a majority winner" then this is EXACTLY the same as saying that IRV "never elects a Condorcet loser". Question: So why don't IRV supporters just say that IRV "never elects a Condorcet loser"? Answer: IRV supporters don't want IRV to be judged by its properties but by its own underlying heuristic. We all know that every election method is the best possible election method when judged by its own underlying heuristic. If IRV supporters just said that IRV "never elects a Condorcet loser", then this argument could also be used by the supporters of other election methods that satisfy the Condorcet loser criterion. Markus Schulze ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
