[EM] CVD 3 single seat methods

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

THE CENTER FOR VOTING & DEMOCRACY has a question and answer page at
http://www.igc.org/cvd/introduction/q_and_a.htm

CVD is now mentioning 3 methods for single seat offices-----
----------------
What About The President? We Can't Divide Up The Presidency, Can We?

No, we can't. Single seat offices like the president, governor, mayor or 
district representatives can't be elected with proportional 
representation. However, there are much better ways for electing them 
than what we use today, ways that guarantee that the winner will be 
supported by a majority of voters: 

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) -- related to choice voting, because like 
choice voting the voter simply ranks candidates in an order of 
preference (ex. 1. Perot 2. Clinton 3. Dole). The candidate with the 
least number of first place votes is eliminated, and their votes are 
"transferred" to their 2nd choice until a candidate has a majority. Also 
called majority preference voting or the alternative vote. 

Approval -- 
Voters are allowed to vote for all candidates they approve. For example, 
Bush-Yes Perot-No Clinton-Yes. The candidate with the highest number of 
"yes" votes wins. Click here for a more complete explanation. [Link to
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html
Approval Voting Home Page]

Condorcet's 
Method -- Like preference voting and majority preference voting, the 
voter simply ranks candidates in an order of preference (ex. 1. Perot 2. 
Clinton 3. Bush). Unlike majority preference voting though, several 
two-way races are simulated using the ballots, determining who would win 
a Perot/Clinton race, who would win a Perot/Bush race, and who would win 
a Bush/Clinton race. The one who wins all of the pairwise elections 
wins. Click here for a more detailed explanation. [Link to
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics/condorcet.html
Condorcet's Method]

All of these methods give voters a greater voice in how their vote is 
used, and alleviate the "lesser-of-two-evils" problem for voters. Our 
current winner-take-all system promotes candidates who blame all of our 
problems on those who would never vote for them, and punishes candidates 
who come up with pragmatic, middle-ground solutions.