Forwarded Letter from Charles Fiterman

[New Democracy]

>X-Sender: cef at pop3.geodesic.com
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 07:18:43 -0500
>To: donald at mich.com (New Democracy)
>From: Charles Fiterman <cef at geodesic.com>
>Subject: Re: Forwarded Letter from Mike O
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>A fourth objection to rank balloting.
>
>Rank balloting assumes that the complexity of the system
>is not an issue or will cease to be an issue when computer
>voting is available.
>
>This is simply wrong. More complex systems drive voters
>away adn reduce the number of elective offices. In the
>UK people vote for parlement but not for judges or even
>the head of state. Parlement appoints all these or they
>are hereditary.
>
>Having more elective offices is simply more democratic.
>Driving away voters with a complex system is less
>democratic. Even approval voting is in this sense less
>democratic than straight voting. There are no perfect
>answers.
>
>Two issues. First what is a majority? In approval voting
>a majority is the approval of a majority of voters. It
>means a majority of voters are willing to see you in office.
>
>If a majority is required for taking office, something I'm
>not sure makes sense approval voting means it is easier to
>get a majority. If a majority is required I would propose
>that non voters are counted as approving of all candidates.
>If you want to approve of no candidates you must come down
>and submit a blank ballot.
>
>This will allow the winner in an American election to say
>they had the approval of 75% of the voters instead of saying
>they came in a poor second to "none of the above." It encourages
>voting.
>
>
>Charles Fiterman              Geodesic  Systems
>414 North Orleans Suite 410       Phone 312 832 1221 x223
>Chicago IL 60610-4418           FAX   312 832 1230
>                                  http://www.geodesic.com
>
>http://www.il.lp.org/html/1998candidates.html
>
>He didn't inhale and he didn't impale but he isn't
>Dan Quayle so let the man sail.
>