In my reply to Saari, I should have added that the way we avoid mugging the voters in the way I described is to let them vote preferences, and to count all preferences at full-strength, even though no one pretends that all preferences are the same strength. We're not trying to represent the actual strength of the preferences, merely allowing each voter to have equal say on each 2-way comparison. You can ask people to be a nice-guy and give up that right, but you certainly can't say that it isn't their right. *** That's putting it in terms of our right to express & have fully counted all of our preferences. But, as I said, if you don't agree with that, & have no sympathy for voters who'd be mugged by your point system, then I appeal to the widely-held standard of majority rule. A majority has the power to make happen whatever it wants to. You can't change that, MIke S. But in Plurality, and in a points assignment system, members of tha majority would have to use various drastsic defensive strategies to get what they all want. Protecting majority rule is really synonymous with getting rid of the LO2E problem, and with avoiding methods that force voters to use drastic insincere voting strategy, which subject voters to strategy dilemma of a particulary undesirable kind. Mike Ossipoff