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

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Ossipoff wrote-

What I don't understand is why you didn't run a better candidate,
to run against Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Sadaam?

If those are the candidates, then of course one of them should win.
Hopefully the best one. But it's important that people not be cowed
into dumping the one they consider best in order to beat the one they
consider worst.
--
D- Perhaps Washington type candidates are killed by the tyrant types or 
happen to die or are disqualified after the ballots are printed.

If the just- say- NO option is not available, then the People get one of 
tyrants (using the *relative* evil number votes).  NO thanks.

I am quite sure that the average voter has enough brains to both vote YES/NO 
and to number vote ---

A    NO    4
B    YES   2
C    NO     5
D    YES    3
E    YES    1
F     NO     6

Alternative- vote the candidates in order

1 E  YES
2 B  YES
3 D  YES
4 A  NO
5 C  NO
6  F  NO

If you get a NO majority, you LOSE (which might include even the likes of 
Nader or Buchanan in Nov. 2000 as shocking as that may appear to some folks 
on this list).

If you get a YES majority, then you go head to head with the other YES 
majority choices (with a place votes tiebreaker (if no Condorcet winner) 
after dropping all the losers).

If this makes it more difficult for certain folks (on or off this list) to 
play strategy games regarding divided majorities, then all the better.