[EM] MSC reply

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Regarding
Subj:  Re: [EM] Multiple Same Choices
Date:  Tue, Feb 27, 1996 7:10 AM EDT
From: dfb at bbs.cruzio.com (Mike Ossipoff)

My response--
A. The values in the Multiple Same Choices posting are choices of levels, not
points. For example if there were 100 candidates a voter could have 30, 40,
50, 99 or 100 choices of levels.

B. With just 3 candidates (with 2 of them being "extremists") a "middle"
voter has some elementary strategic voting to do for his/her second choice
(who might be a minus 99.9 percent choice versus a minus 100 percent choice)
as shown in my posting of 
Subj:  [ER] Single Winners- Condorcet versus Approval
Date:  Fri, Feb 16, 1996 4:22 AM EDT
involving the Hitler-Stalin-Middle example. 

Does Mr. Condorcet say that a voter cannot have 2 or more equal first (or
later) choices ? If so, Mr. Condorcet is anti-freedom of choice.

C. The test winner, test loser and test other losers terminology is the same
as what the Condorcet method does in making pair comparisons- one of the pair
is a test winner, one is a test loser. The first choice votes for each of the
pair and the votes transferred from the other first choice candidates (test
other losers) for one of the pair determines which of the pair is a relative
winner. Saying that the Condorcet method compares the votes each of two
candidates receives as if there were only those two candidates may be good
enough for speaking to folks but not for math examples on paper and election
computer programmers.