How can you say that a few examples contradict the qualifier "most?"
And how can you say without qualification that there is no motivation for dishonesty in 2-man pairwise polls? > > I believe that Jameson Quinn is right when he says that most > Condorcet cycles are probably artificial, > i.e. they are caused by strategic truncation or strategic burial. > > --For a real life example of a Condorcet cycle in a large > national election, see > http://rangevoting.org/Romania2009.html > Contrary to Simmons' conjecture/intuition, this cycle seems to have > been not "strategic," it was "honest" -- because the evidence > for the > cycle consists of pairwise-poll data, and there is no motivation for > dishonesty in 2-man pairwise polls. > > Further, other real-world cycle examples (?) are noted, > discussed 2nd > half of section 4. > > -- > Warren D. Smith ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
