First-Choice Winner Standard

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Davidson's comments cause me to note that the current put an X
before/after a name voting systems are, in effect, limited number vote
systems.  Namely, an X vote is a 1 vote.  

Thus, the current elect N, vote for not more than N choices, systems in all
States, are, in effect, all limited number vote systems (such as elect 3
judges, vote an X for not more than 3 judge candidates) with the false
appearance of being limited Approval voting systems.

As I have noted again and again, a number vote is ONLY a relative vote (i.e.
choice 1 is only relatively liked more than choice 2, etc.) but does NOT show
*real* approval (i.e. tolerable) by a voter (as might be done by a YES/NO
vote).

Thus, even when winners get a majority of all of the votes in plurality and
IRO systems such winners do NOT necessarily have *real* approval by a majority
of all of the voters (due to the LO2E problem as repeatedly noted by Mr.
Ossipoff).

Another simple 2 choices example where simple Approval is defective--

998 A
    2 AB
999 B
1999 total

Using simple Approval-
A 1000
B 1001, B wins using Approval
Choice A had a first choice majority, if number votes were being used.  

I note that many proportional representation election systems for legislative
bodies use Number Votes such that there would be major pressure for the use of
Number Votes in polls for executive and judicial offices (even if simple
Approval was being used).  

Many of the first choice A voters would not be amused by the poll results
versus the declared results.

Thus, I suggest again the use of YES/NO votes and Number Votes.  

Example-

W    NO   3
X     YES  2
Y     NO    4
Z     YES  1

Even rather stupid voters should be able to do both (with electronic voting
systems on computers especially with standard 100 percent secret vote
security).

A public vote version would be done in public legislative bodies for the
enactment of laws.