Bart wrote-- In NYC the top candidate only needs 40% of the vote to avoid a runoff. Makes sense to me, since 40% is no more arbitrary than 50%. I would gladly accept a strong plurality over a manufactured majority. ---- D- Anything less than a majority is totally arbitrary since by definition --- Majority > Minority (i.e. most pluralities).
Many current alleged *strong* plurality winners have lots of *insincere* votes --- President (popular votes) - Mr. Clinton 1992 and 1996 and Mr. Bush 2000. For newer folks I note again that a choice is or is not tolerable with a majority of the voters. If there happen to be two or more such majority tolerable choices, then number (rank) votes can be used to see if there is a Condorcet Winner. If not, then the highest tolerable choice can be the tiebreaker ---- for mere mortal citizen- voters who are not (yet) into all sorts of conspiratorial strategic mathematical machinations. Executive/ judicial officers should be nominated and elected in a nonpartisan manner (to lessen the *partisan* enforcement of the laws).
