MOAV "criterion"?

[Steve Eppley]

Demorep wrote:
>Mr. Eppley wrote:
>>Here's another test case for MOAV (and IRO): 
>>   35: A 
>>   32: B 
>>   33: CB 
>
>MOAV "criterion" (for executive and judicial offices): a candidate
>must get the approval of a majority of the voters on a yes/no vote.

MOAV isn't intended to apply to electing a Legislator in a single 
member district?

MOAV is not a single-winner criterion.  It's a "one or none"-winner 
criterion.  There's no way to guarantee a majority of the voters will 
approve of the person elected (or selected) for the office.

>If each vote is an approval vote in the 35-32-33 example, then only
>B gets majority approval. 

That's a big "if".  How can it be justified?  How would a voter be 
able to both vote "No" on a candidate and rank that candidate ahead 
of another?

Since IRO elects A, not B in this example, Demorep has explicitly
acknowledged that IRO violates MOAV.  (This contradicts what he wrote 
about IRO earlier.)  MOAV//IRO is not the same as IRO.

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)