I call you dishonest because you write fraudulent statements such as “B wins under the Balinski-Laraki voting method because B’s median is 51 versus A’s 50”.
The example on that page was 100% accurate, not fraudulent in the least. It used a 0–100 scale (because it was written eight years before majority judgement was invented), but it works exactly the same regardless of the scale. I easily demonstrated this in my previous response, but here it is again:
# voters — their vote
49 A=5 B=3 C=0 D=0
1 A=2 B=3 C=5 D=0
49 A=2 B=0 C=0 D=5
Besides, you take cases with two candidates while one of the strength of MJ is to allow for more (potentially irrelevant) alternatives.
But STAR voting, score voting, and approval voting all have this strength as well, and are much less vulnerable to strategy.
if US election where run under majority judgement there would be much more candidates & much less room for strategizing
Compared to the current horrible voting method, yes. But compared to other modern methods, such as score voting, STAR voting, approval voting, etc., majority judgement is an absolute disaster.
Once again, your exemple doesn’t apply.
You are dead wrong and have presented absolutely no evidence that my example “doesn’t apply”.