Margins, majority, strategy

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Cretneys posting of Sep 22, 1998 shows again why I suggest a YES/NO vote
be done for all executive, judicial and issue (laws, constitutional
amendments) choices along with number votes.

Only the choices getting a YES majority of ALL the voters would go head to
head using the number votes (e.g. minority YES choices due to truncated votes
automatically would lose).

Anybody who thinks that laws should be passed in legislative bodies by a
minority of the members of the body is dangerously anti-democratic (e.g. a
bill supposedly *passes* by 2 YES to 1 NO with 97 members not voting (i.e.
truncating) --- what a joke !).

How about having the voters vote 2 ballots -- a *sincere* ballot and an
*insincere* ballot (that exploits the election method's defect(s)) ?

Or even more *insincere* ballots -- insincere ballot A (based on strategy A),
insincere ballot B (based on strategy B), etc. ?

I note again that (1) thanks to Mr. Arrow that ALL election methods with 3 or
more choices have defects and (2) there will be polling (in free countries).

Once upon a time the *common law* on various subjects (such as murder,
robbery, assault, etc.) was *common enough* to be known by average illiterate
folks.

Byzantine *New Age* election reform methods are not needed (noting that one of
the dictionary definitions of Byzantine is *resembling the government or
politics of the Byzantine Empire in structure, spirit, etc.; specif.
characterized by complexity, deviousness, intrigue, etc.*).