---- Mail original ----- > De : Nicholas Buckner <[email protected]> > À : Kevin Venzke <[email protected]> > Cc : > Envoyé le : Lundi 11 juin 2012 16h47 > Objet : Re: [EM] Herve Moulin's proof not really a proof > > No, it is a logical fallacy, since the "original" scenario is > 3 voters vote A > D > C > B. > 3 voters vote A > D > B > C. > 5 voters vote D > B > C > A. > 4 voters vote B > C > A > D. > Only if adding votes here with A > candidate X where X goes onto win > would Moulin prove anything. He changes the electorate, the control > group long before that though.
Actually, I think maybe I see what you're seeing. You think he's trying to prove that A can't win in the original four- faction scenario. Actually, he never directly does that. Instead, he shows that *if* A wins in the original scenario, there will be an unsolvable problem. Kevin ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
