[EM] Majority Criterion, hidden contradictions

[Paul Kislanko]

Regarding:
"Approval satisfies Majority rule, but not the Majority Criterion as
interpreted."
A majority of us VOTERS do not agree with the statement, even those of us
who might or might not agree with the interpretation.

It fails the absolute criterion, and a few of us voters notice that. We DO
NOT CARE if you "interpret" the criterion differently than its unambiguous
expression.

-----Original Message-----
From: election-methods-bounces at electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-bounces at electorama.com] On Behalf Of Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:20 AM
To: David Cary; election-methods at electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Majority Criterion, hidden contradictions

This is the meat of it:

As the Majority Criterion is being interpreted -- I have to say that Mr.
Cary's arguments are quite convincing, taking me within what could be called
validation distance of simply agreeing with him -- Approval Voting does not
satisfy the Majority Criterion.

However, it does satisfy a *crucial* criterion that most methods don't.

If the method has not resulted in a victory for the majority preference as
described, *the electorate has approved of this failure, through majority
vote.*

Approval satisfies Majority rule, but not the Majority Criterion as
interpreted.

Many other methods don't demonstrate majority rule. That is, they will
accept a winner who has not been accepted by a majority, it is quite
possible that a majority would prefer a new election to be held than to
accept that winner. And if a majority *rejects* a candidate, under basic
democratic principles, that candidate should not take office.

This is, indeed, the position of Robert's Rules of Order, as revised.....

----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info