> At 07:04 PM 1/5/2009, James Gilmour wrote: > >It is quite clear (and now agreed) that the winner (A) of the > >Exhaustive Ballot example had "a majority of the votes" at the second > >round and so was the rightful winner of that Exhaustive Ballot. But > >it would quite wrong to say that candidate A had the support of > >the majority of those who had taken part in that election, because > >there were two rounds in that one election and some who voted in > >the first round opted not to vote in the second round.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 6:11 PM > The error here is in describing exhaustive ballot as if it were a > single election. It isn't. It is a series of elections, with the > candidate set for each increasingly restricted. This statement is nonsense. There is no error in what I wrote. There is ONE election to determine the one winner from the set of candidates who stand. In the case of the Exhaustive Ballot the election proceeds by a series of rounds (one or more as required), but it is still ONE election. James Gilmour No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.3/1879 - Release Date: 06/01/2009 17:16 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
