We're mixing terms and contexts again. One can define majority to include all eligible voters, in which case it is entirely possible that no alternative achieves a majority because fewer than 50 % of elegible voters participate in the election. No matter what method is used to pick the selection of a majority of participants, it cannot be said that the winner has been a elected by a majority.
Let's move on. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Daniel Bishop > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 5:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set > > Kevin Venzke wrote: > > >Hi James, > > > > --- James Green-Armytage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > > > > >> Another accepted use is "more than half of the voters > who express a > >>preference between two options/candidates". That's the definition I > >>choose. I realize that you don't agree with it, but at > least my reasoning > >>is made clear to you. One benefit of this kind of > definition is that it > >>assures that a batch of spoiled ballots cannot rob a defeat > of "majority" > >>status. > >>http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Neutrality_of_Spoiled_Ballots > >> > >> > > > >Do you mean "spoiled" in the sense meant in that article? > Because I don't > >think there is a danger that many voters will vote everyone > equal, and even > >if they do, I don't think it is a big deal if this breaks > some majorities. > > > It's actually pretty common for voters to cast blank ballots, > especially > if there are many elections on the same day. The recent > elections here > at TAMU (http://vote.tamu.edu/resources/2005A/results.htm) are an > example of this. So were the 2004 U.S. elections: There were quite a > few voters who voted for President but cast a blank ballot in their > House race. > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info