Mike O wrote: -snip- >I hope you've caught on to the fact that no one is opposing >the idea of a y/n vote, with disqualification of anyone getting >"n" from a majority. -snip- I oppose including an option which could disqualify all the candidates. If we did a poll in EM and everyone responded, I don't think I'd be the only Nay. Keep the sw reform proposal simple and as uncontroversial as possible. Including this provision in a single-winner reform proposal may cause the campaign to go down in flames. You can bet the two-party system supporters, opponents of reform, will seize on this. Replacing the stifling two-party system is much more important than requiring a re-election in the theoretical case where no candidate is approved. Some two-party supporters might deviously pretend to advocate the disapprove-all option long enough to get this sw combination on the ballot, then turn around and campaign against the whole package using its indecisiveness as ammo. Much like the health insurance companies helped write Hillary's health reform proposal, then turned around and attacked it with their "Harry and Louise" ads. (No, I'm not suspicious of Demorep's motives. :-) If we ever get to use focus groups to show which sw proposal is more likely to pass, we'd better be sure to provide the group the kind of anti-proposal info, like a vacuum of power during a crisis, that we can expect from opponents of reform. A disapproval option could be adopted at a later date, after passing effective sw reform. If we're talking about passing laws, not about electing candidates to important single-winner offices, then it's obviously essential that disapproval (or the simple equivalent "None of the Rest") be part of the Condorcet's method proposal. ---Steve (Steve Eppley [EMAIL PROTECTED])
