Cheese wins because we don't ignore small tables, as a simple majority system would do. I think small tables deserve to have a voice for their needs, even if there are fewer of them. It's not right to ignore an entire group of tables simply because fewer people sit at them.
If it’s possible to ensure such majority of pepperoni lovers in every single group, then pepperoni lovers have an overall majority. They don’t need scams to win. In fact - you’d need scams to prevent them from winning.
Not necessarily.
Let's say you have 100 people. 60 want cheese, 40 want pepperoni.
You need to split this 100 people into 6 tables, each table will vote and submit their overall request. Whichever kind of pizza most of the tables request gets ordered.
You assign seating as follows:
Table 1- 10 pepperoni, 6 cheese
Table 2- 10 pepperoni, 7 cheese
Table 3- 10 pepperoni, 6 cheese
Table 4- 10 pepperoni, 7 cheese
Table 5- 17 cheese, no pepperoni
Table 6- 17 cheese, no pepperoni
There we go. I've just 'fairly, evenly' divided 100 people into 6 tables of 16-17 people each.
And thus with my 'simple and unimportant' job of assigning table seating, I've guaranteed that pepperoni will be ordered even though a majority of the people want cheese. Tables 1-4 will vote and pepperoni will win, tables 5-6 will unanimously agree on cheese, and when we ask the tables what they want 4 out of 6 tables will vote pepperoni. And thus the minority wins because the table seating was a scam.
If the tables were assigned randomly, or if a computer grouped the tables by similar interest, age, etc, we'd get something more like a fair vote.