MOAV "criterion"?

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Eppley wrote:

Demorep has often recited the example of Weimar Germany, in which the
*legislature* chose Herr Hitler; the "legislature solution" is dubious.
----
D-
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.