http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_general_election,_2014#ResultsWe've already discussed enough. For those who weren't in IRC, this is the results in Brazil. My point is that if a candidate doesn't have a majority to win against the 2nd most voted, they'd do a run-off, and the context of A vs B is different than A vs B vs C vs +++... In Brazil, the 3rd most voted after being defeated on the 1st run gave support to the 2nd most voted, together they make more than 50% and most of their electorate base support for their platform was running against A alone. A (Dilma) would be the most evil. What happens in a run-off is that the context is different, it changes from A being evil for who is the lesser evil. In a minority perspective, voting for A vs B or not voting at all after your C or other option is eliminated is much different than a general election with all the option. Voters "think twice" when you have not found a majority leader on the first vote.
Condorcet wouldn't allow you to equate A vs B in a later match without the other options, it'd always be C against all, either by voting on C alone or ranking others lower than C, whichever way they felt at the time. Dilma has won the 2nd vote majority after getting bellow 50% on the first vote.
And finito, bc Condorcet already won but you keep discussing this for some reason. Condorcet wins by plurality hahaha, the irony.
I refuse to debate with someone who uses "That's how democracy works" as their explanation for why we should or should not have a particular voting system.
If you wouldn't pick things out of context I'd appreciate.
Are you saying LePage's victory was not democratic? If you want to discuss this alone, I'll totally humor the crowd.