MOAV "criterion"?

Sun Feb 9 21:25:50 PST 1997

Mr. Eppley wrote:

Demorep has often recited the example of Weimar Germany, in which the
*legislature* chose Herr Hitler; the "legislature solution" is dubious.
Herr Hitler was appointed Chancellor (head of government) in Germany in Jan.
1933 by President Hindenburg and not by the German parliament (Reichstag). 
Mr. Eppley wrote more:

Switching from the existing Plurality & Top2Runoff
methods to Condorcet or Smith//Condorcet would impose a significant barrier
to a Hitler or a Gingrich achieving executive power.

D- If Mr. Gingrich is akin to Mr. Hitler, then is Mr. Nader akin to Mr.
Stalin (in thought if not yet in fact) ?  In case Mr. Eppley is unaware many
folks are Republicans- is Mr. Eppley claiming that such folks are Nazis ?
 Does this mean that Democrats are Communists ?  

Since plain Condorcet has obvious non-majority rule defects, using words and
phrases such as *disorderly discussion* shows only juvenile intelligence
capable only of name calling.
If anything the *disorderly discussion* is Mr. Eppley's in not seriously
responding to the various minority rule examples of plain Condorcet that I
have posted.  

The average voter has no interest in what any single winner method is called,
such as the XX//YY//ZZ method,  but has some minimal comprehension,
notwithstanding terrible public schools, of majority rule (as compared to
plurality and Condorcet's distinct possibility of producing winners having
support that is a little more than plurality (roughly in the 37-45 percent of
all voters range due to truncated votes) but a little less than a majority of
all the voters- i.e. beating each other candidate by at least 51 of 100
votes). For every Nader 37-45 percent winner it  is just as likely to get a
37-45 percent Gingrich winner with plain Condorcet.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list