At 02:23 PM 11-30-2000 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[third pass]
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 02:00:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Surely you agree that a minority of people being able to subvert the
> resolution procedure to get what they want instead of what the majority
> want is a bad thing?
I think I agree with your underlying point -- that this kind of
discrepancy in the voting system indicates a flaw.
This sounds like what the www.electionmethods.com site calls the "Strong
Defensive Strategy Criterion": "If a majority of the voters prefer
candidate A to candidate B, then they should have a way of voting that will
ensure that B cannot win, without any member of that majority reversing a
sincere preference for one candidate over another or insincerely voting two
candidates equal."
I disagree with your emotional loading (e.g. the use of words like
"subvert"), but you still have a valid point.
Is the wording of the SDSC better?
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
