[posted and mailed] Stan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in sci.stat.edu, Robert J. > MacG. Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Stan Brown wrote: >>> Indeed, it would be silly to let him appear on the ballot.[A] (Hear me >>> out, please, before you react.) If a majority want to remove him, >>> then obviously a majority doesn't want to retain him [B]. >> >> I agree with [B] but not [A]. In a typical three-way >>race, there is *no* candidate that a majority wants to elect. Or, to put >>it another way, for each candidate there usually exists a majority that >>does not want that person elected. > > You're right. That's why I said "hear me out before you react"! As I > had said in my next paragraph, the problem is that simple plurality > is a really lousy way to pick a winner if there are more than two > serious candidates. > California should take a serious look at Instant Runoff voting (IRV), a system designed to address these issues. See www.fairvote.com for further details. Many of the newer electronic voting systems can support this approach. -- Good luck, Jerry Harder remove spamnein to respond . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
