>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Majority? Expressivity? Strategy?
>> Mr. Moore wrote--
>> So I don't really see the point of the example.
>> -----
>> D- The point is to require majority support for
>> choices for executive and judicial offices for the
>> obvious reason that majority support is required
>> to pass ballot issues and enact laws (if there is
>> no supermajority requirement).
Of course, since ballot issues and bills only have
two choices, Plurality, IRV, Condorcet, Borda,
Approval, etc. all give the same answer and the
winning side always has a majority. An artifact of
only having two choices.
>> Thus to *force* second, etc. choices if it
>> apparent that a first choice does not have
>> majority support.
>> Standard mantra-
>> Desired > Compromise > Unacceptable
>> A minority cannot (should not) ever get its
>> *desired* choice elected--- sorry supporters of
>> Mr. Nader or Mr. Buchanan (and most, if not all,
>> minority choice supporters) in 2000 for U.S.A.
>> President.
The current President was preferred by a minority.
All of the candidates were preferred by a minority.
No electoral system can change an empirical fact.
