Majority? Expressivity? Strategy?

Mon Apr 2 19:16:36 PDT 2001

Mr. Moore wrote--

So I don't really see the point of the example.
D- The point is to require majority support for choices for executive and 
judicial offices for the obvious reason that majority support is required to 
pass ballot issues and enact laws (if there is no supermajority requirement).

Thus to *force* second, etc. choices if it apparent that a first choice does 
not have majority support.

Standard mantra- 

Desired > Compromise > Unacceptable

A minority cannot (should not) ever get its *desired* choice elected--- sorry 
supporters of Mr. Nader or Mr. Buchanan (and most, if not all, minority 
choice supporters) in 2000 for U.S.A. President.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list