Lesser of 2 evils

[Mike Ossipoff]

Bruce has just posted the same arguments about one of the lesser-of-2-evils
guarantees that he sent to me. When he sent that argument to me, I
carefully explained to him where he went wrong. Now he's sending the
same argument to you, with no hint of a reply to my comments about
his argument. Typical.

Bruce is referring to one of the 2 "lesser-of-2-evils guarantees" that
I'd sent to him, and which would be dessirable for a method to meet.
Here's the guarantee, which I'll word as a criterion:

If a full majority vote A over B, there should be a way that they
can vote that will ensure that B won't win, and they should be
be able to achieve that without voting a less-liked alternative
equal to or over a more-liked one.



/
Bruce said
Bruce said that this criterion
requ
must quit because of line noise.

Bruce said taht this requires that _every_ majority be able to
simultaneously do that. Bruce: Check you dictionary for the difference
between "a" and "every". I didn't say that every overlapping majority,
]however consitituted, should be able to simultaneously defeat anyone
the rank someone else over. Bruce made that part up.

Bruce, if you aren't dishonest, then why are you repeating the
same fallacious argument that I corrected when you sent it by
individual e-mail?

Mike





--