I recongnize that we might not all agree on which is worse: IRO or Approval. Both IRO & Approval fall short of what we would like, but in completely different ways. For that reason, it's reasonable that everyone isn't necessarily going to agree on which is worse. In my "Approval vs IRO" letter, I was just telling why _I_ consider IRO worse than Approval, _based on the things that I judge by_. I don't want to give the impression of getting militant about which is the worse of 2 methods neither of which are favored by electoral reformers who have taken a serious look at single-winner methods. I don't want to offend people over that issue, when there are more important things to fight for, like convincing the large electoral organizations that there's something better than IRO. (And that Condorcet's method can't be beaten when it comes to principles, standards & criteria relating to majority rule & the desire to not force people to vote insincerely). Mike Ossipoff --
