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

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Ossipoff wrote-

I quite agree that relative rank positions aren't Y/N votes.
The advantage of rank balloting is that the election isn't a Y/N
choice: It's a relative choice. Someone has to win, so which
should it be? Relative balloting, because the election is a relative
choice.
---
D- Not quite relative.  As I have mentioned now about 5 times on this list- A 
legislative body could always choose a person for an elective executive or 
judicial office if there is a vacancy (when the voters do not find any (or 
enough) majority YES choices).

The 2000 election for U.S. President might just be such a case.  NONE of the 
candidates might be deemed worthy enough to get a YES majority.

If ALL of the candidates in a given year of really hard times (like perhaps 
1932) happen to be extremists (such as perhaps Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, 
etc. etc.) would Mr. Ossipoff demand that one of such folks be elected in a 
*relative choice* election ???  

I note that with current primary election plurality nominations, many e
xtremists of both the D and R parties are now being nominated so the voters 
really have the LO2E *relative choice* problem in general elections that Mr. 
Ossipoff (and myself) are unhappy about.

A YES majority requirement for executive and judicial offices is a political 
safety valve (which just might reduce the demagogic pandering rhetoric of 
some candidates for executive offices especially).