06/21/02 - `Majority' is not a valid word on the EM list: Dave K wrote: "...failure to recognize "majority" as a valid English word puzzles me whenever I see it."
Dear Dave, Best not to use the word `majority' on this EM list, the word has been corrupted. Some of the election methods discussed on this list use more votes and/or choices in their calculations than there are voters. It is possible, in the minds of some, for two or more candidates to have, what is loosely termed, `a majority'. In other words, when two or more candidates each have a number of votes that is equal in number to what would be a majority of the voters, some members on this list consider that to be `a majority' for each candidate. I do not hold their belief. My position is that in those methods, a majority of the voters is not the same as a majority of the votes. Besides, it is mathematically impossible for a method to produce a true majority of the votes for any candidate when the votes are twice the number of voters. The exception would be Cumulative Voting for single seat. Only on this EM list does the word `majority' need a translation when it is used. Tell us Dave, what is your translation of the word `majority' in the context of an election? Is `majority' a number greater than one half? If so, would that be one half of the voters or one half of the votes and/or choices? Suppose an Approval Voting election with 100 voters, and the results are: Candidate A 56 votes, Candidate B 54 votes, Candidate C 51 votes Would you say that each of these three candidates has `a majority'? I suppose if one were to loose their senses one could accept that there are three majority candidates. Some do claim that all three candidates have `a majority'. Supporters of Approval Voting will use the code-words `true majority candidate'. Which implies that the Approval Voting method is to be the standard by which all single-seat methods are to be judged and that the `true majority candidate' of any election would be the Approval candidate. It follows that the actual `true majority candidate' would be, can be, revealed by working the election data according to the rules of Approval Voting. I find all this to be a corruption of logic. Anyway, I find it best to stay away from the word `majority' as much as possible, less someone misinterperts what I am saying. Talk of `a majority' and the `true majority candidate' is merely so much gobbledygook. Regards, Donald Davison, host of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald Candidate Election Methods +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ | Q U O T A T I O N | | "Democracy is a beautiful thing, | | except that part about letting just any old yokel vote." | | - Age 10 - | +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ APV Approval Voting ATV Alternative Vote aka IRV Instant Runoff Voting aka IRVing FPTP First Past The Post aka Plurality NOTA None of the Above aka RON Re-Open Nominations STV Single Transferable Vote aka Choice Voting aka Hare-Clark aka Preference Voting aka Hare Preferential Voting Please be advised that sending email to me allows me to quote from it and/or forward the entire email to others. ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em