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
