Mike Ossipoff frequently writes: >If a full majority of all the voters indicate that they'd rather >have A than B, then, if we choose A or B, it should be A. I think I understand what is meant, but I also believe it could be expressed more precisely. In particular, how is "voters" defined? It could mean (a) registered voters; (b) those who vote in any election that is on the same ballot with the A vs. B race; (c) those who vote in any pairwise race on that ballot for the office for which A and B are contending; or (d) those who vote in the race A vs. B. I believe (c) is intended, but "all" might make a case for (b), if not (a). I am not sure what "full" adds to the statement. I admit that the version with definition (c), as a standard independent of that with definition (d), does not strike me as an intuitively compelling standard. If both versions appear to be violated in an election (due to a Condorcet circular tie), I won't feel much better about it just because enough absentee ballots turn up that express no preference between A and B to reduce A below a "full majority" under (c). Should I feel relieved in that case, more than if those absentees had not bothered to vote in the race at all? -- Hugh Tobin
