On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:30:10 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
...
Actually, the term in the first sentence is "majority rule," which, in
actual operation, makes decisions always between two alternatives,
minimized to Yes or No on a single question.
...
It could be made compatible, and the method is obvious, and is precisely
what Robert's Rules of order describes as how it would be used. A true
majority is required to win. IRV then becomes a method of finding
majorities, provided that enough voters add enough ranked choices. If
all voters rank all the candidates, a majority is guaranteed.
We happily complain about others' seen misuse of "majority". Seems to
mew the above is misuse.
If every voter ranks every candidate, then you have managed a infinity
of yeses, zero noes, and nothing to indicate which candidate has won.
True that the ranking identifies a winner but, if we were looking at
the ranking, we would have no need to demand the complete ranking
specified above.
Elsewhere I argue for Condorcet as better than IRV - for more
completely counting voters' complete preferences.
There I argue for abandonment, or at least relaxation of, majority
requirements, because voter have more completely expressed their desires.
...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
