CVD wants Alt.V to be fairer but it isn't: misleading website

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

D- The more ABC, etc,  XYZ criteria that are thrown out as being absolutely
critical for an election method, the more the public will get confused and
keep same old rotten plurality.

Mr. Ossipoff-  I reply:

I disagree. Some criteria can't be ignored. True, many don't like
criteria, but those same people care very much about the LO2E problem,
and will listen when told that the criteria measure for the LO2E
standard, and for the majority rule standard.

[D- Going beyond Majority Rule will boggle the minds of most voters into 
paralysis- note the simple pandering by both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore in the 
so-called Prez debate on Oct. 3.  Guess what Prez candidates would do with 
any *complex* EM single winner method under serious consideration in the U.S. 
Congress (and corresponding politicians in State legislatures) ???]

Demorep continues:

     Many folks are not quite so strategy/
conspiratorial minded as some folks on this list (especially regarding added
or removed votes from the ballot boxes).

I reply:

You're very mistaken there. Most folks are not only strategy-conscious,
but are thoroughly & pitifully cowed & dominated by their perceived
need to strategize. Most reform folks are very concerned about the
lesser-of-2-evils probem, for that reason. Even the IRVies pay
lip-service to it, as they cheerfully botch single-winner reform.

Demorep continues:

The well known KISS principle definitely applies for getting election 
reforms
in the U.S.A.

Mr. Ossipoff- I reply;

KISSies want to give up before we even find out what people will
accept. That's what I referred to above as "pre-emptive surrender".

It's for simplicity that, when I propose Condorcet, I propose it
without any of the enhancements that would further improve it. I
propose it in its simple unenhanced form, to keep the proposal simple.

Anyway, you want to complicate rank-balloting methods by adding
Y/N to the ballot. That doesn't just complicate the proposal and the
ballot. It tremendously complicates the voting strategy too.

[D- *Absolute* acceptability exists for candidates, food, housing or 
whatever. The voters have enough brains to vote YES or NO on U.S. President 
candidates]

But if you mean that Approval would be a better proposal, because
it's far simpler than any of the rank-balloting/rank-count proposals,
then I hope that means that you're advocating Approval.

[D- Simple Approval (even with its major defect in not noting relative 
choices-- falsely treating A=B=C when there might be CAB, or BCA, etc in 
reality by a given voter) is, of course, preferable to minority rule with 
Plurality.]

Demorep continues:

Regarding Approval, it exists already in many States in issue elections.

Mr. Ossipoff- I reply:

Nope. What exists in the U.S. for conflicting initiatives is
"Y/N Approval", or "Approval with Y/N". That's very different from
Approval. You, Demorep, would like it better than Approval, because
of its Y/N component. But that makes its strategy very much more
complicated than that of Approval, whose strategy is no more difficult
than that of Plurality. I don't advocate Y/N Approval.

Demorep continues:

Standard circular tie simple example.  A, B and C are acceptable to a
majority of the voters on a simple YES/NO vote.

35 ABC
34 BCA
33 CAB

102

Which choice should win ???

Mr. Ossipoff-  I reply:

Every Condorcetist or BeatpathWinner advocate on this list would
agree that A should win.

[D- Assuming YES votes are exactly the same as the first 2 place votes, then 
there just might be

A 68
B 69
C 67

Obviously, a relative place number vote is NOT an Acceptable (YES) vote 
(notwithstanding Mr. Ossipoff's attempts for circa 4 years on this list to 
deny such political fact of life).]