seppley at alumni.caltech.edu
Mon Feb 3 18:28:37 PST 1997
>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
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
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)
More information about the Election-Methods