Demorep1: Truncation. Approval.

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Demorep1 wrote:
I repeat--- the major competitors to plain Condorcet are top 2xN runoff (N=
Number to be elected, in common use in nonpartisan elections and in partisan
runoff primaries in 10 southern states), approval voting and instant run-off.
All such 3 methods will probably produce a majority of all votes (MOAV)
winner.
----
Mr. Ossipoff wrote:
What does a "majority of all votes winner" mean, and how do those methods
"produce" it? As I always say at this point in the repetition, Runoff & IRO
"produce" a fake majority winner. An alternative that is preferred to 1 other
alternative, and is called a "majority winner"for that reason, even though a
majority prefer someone else to it--a majority whose wishes are being
violated by that "majority winner".
-----
Demorep1 writes:
Top 2 runoff example- 999 voters
Primary
W 324
X 323
Y 322
Z   30
Y and Z lose
General Election
X 438
Y 561
Y wins and gets a majority of all the voters.
----
Approval voting example- 999 voters
D  450
E  510
F  650
G  423
F wins and gets a majority of all the voters.
----
Instant run-off example- 999 voters
First elimination 
G  210 - 210 = 0
H  252 +   51 = 303
K  314 +   42 = 356
L  223  + 117 = 340
G loses
Second elimination
H  303 - 303 = 0
K  356 + 132 = 488 
L  340 + 171 = 511
H loses.
L wins with a majority of all voters.
---
A reminder, the Condorcet winner got a maximum of 335 (a minority) of 999
votes from the-- 
 A Condorcet major truncation example--
 A 334
 B 333
 C 330
 CB   2
 2 of 999 voters made a second choice.   B wins a glorious victory and a
 mighty mandate to be El Supremo by beating A 335 to 334 and by beating C 333
to 332.

One guess about which of the 4 reform method examples that (a) that your
average, friendly focus group will regard as least acceptable from a majority
of all voters viewpoint and/or (b) is easiest for incumbents to devastate
with wave attacks of negative TV ads (that will make presidential candidate
negative attack ads look like child's play).

I concur, of course, with Mr. Ossipoff's "fake majority" comments about the
Top 2, AV and IRO methods possibly producing the wrong winner on a head to
head basis.  See my earlier postings having examples of defective Top 2, AV
and IRO examples.