Always impossible! - not

[Mike Ositoff]

> 
> Mr. Ossipoff wrote in part---
> 
> But, Demorep, do you have to use the expression "1-person-1-vote"?
> That's another way of saying the method has to be Plurality, or
> maybe IRO, though it would admittedly permit Plurality With Withdrawals
> and IRO With Withdrawals.
> 
> "1-person-1-vote" is used to argue against rank-balloting counted
> pairwise, and against my easy, but maybe a little cowardly, 
> Approval proposal, and related point systems. How about, instead,
> saying "equal voting power for each voter".
> ---
> D-- The phrase "1-person-1-vote" was obviously used to be the historical
> opposite of "the few (rich or gerrymander) persons with all/most of the votes
> and the many other persons with zero/partial votes".   Perhaps now-- 1 [adult]
> person, N equal votes ???  
> 

One author did call it "1 person N votes", but that won't help
people's confusion. I prefer: 1 person 1 candidate 1 vote", meaning
that each voter has exactly 1 vote to give to or withold from
each candidate. A point system is a familiar idea, and so 
explaining it as the 0-1 point system also helps.

I emphasize that we discuss methods here that aren't necessarily
the ones that we recommend as the best. My favorites are the
best rank-balloting methods that we've discussed.

Mike Ossipoff



>