part 4, 1st Choice Criterion

[Mike Ositoff]

That's what I call the weak form of that criterion.

A stronger form would say that no one should ever have to
vote a less-liked alternative _equal to or over_ one's favorite
in order to gain the election of the CW over someone that voter
likes less.

By the way, there isn't always a CW, but the genuine lesser-of-2-evils
situations are about protrecting a CW's win. For instance,when
someone votes for Clinton even though Nader is their favorite,
they're doing it to protect the CW's win. They know that they
and everyone who likes Clinton better than Dole could combine
their votes to make Clinton beat Dole. Since Clinton would
also have such a win over Nader, Clinton is CW in that 3-candidate
election. You could regard "CW" as a more precisely defined
substitute for "lesser-evil", when people tell you they have
to vote for a lesser-evil instead of a favorite.

Must mail this before I lose it

Mike