RE: [EM] Responses to some of Forest's ideas

[LAYTON Craig]

Forest wrote (in part):

>But playing the devil's advocate for a minute, I will state the case for
>B:

<snip>

Again, your argument is very persuasive.

>So either the greed or the arrogance of 55 percent deprives the body
>politic from being governed by maximum consent.  Approval = Potential for
>Consent.
>
>In summary, we don't have to argue for adoption of Approval over Condorcet
>only on the basis of simplicity, Favorite Betrayal Criterion, etc. 
>Approval gives more hope than any other (multi-candidate single winner)
>method to the disenfranchised minority against the "tyranny of the
>majority." 

I think this may echo some of Demorep's concerns, but I would say that the
problem with such a scenario is that a single office bearer wields enough
power to make the lives of 35% of the population miserable.  The solution to
tyranny of the majority is to make the decision making structure more
diffuse, not to elect a single candidate, who isn't very popular, to make
all the decisions.

Craig Layton