SARC definition improvement

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Ossipoff wrote--

But it's still a problem. Adding the Y/N vote to the balloting
merely complicates the strategy--it doesn't get rid of the
need for defensive strategy. If you're a progressive, you could
vote No for Al Gore, but if you're a lesser-of-2-evils progressive,
you'll feel a need to vote "Yes" for him, believing that he's the
only thing keeping Bush from winning. Nothing is solved by adding
Y/N, then. But Y/N greatly complicates the strategy of voting systems.
For instance Approval with Y/N (by which we choose among
mutually-contradictory initiatives in California now) has a much
more complicated strategy thatn ordinary plain Approval.
---
D- For the zillionist time I note that mere ranking (1, 2, etc.) does NOT 
show any *absolute* acceptability of any of the choices but ONLY shows 
*relative* acceptability.

ALL of the candidates in a specific election (Bush, Gore, etc.) might be 
deemed rotten by various majorities of the voters on a YES/NO vote.

It is a majority of the voters who could be victimized by simple Condorcet 
(and its variations promoted by Mr. Ossipoff) by having one such rotten 
candidate win and claim a mighty mandate from the voters.

If the strategy of an election becomes *more complicated* for executive 
office candidates and their armies of pollsters and handlers, then all the 
better.

Perhaps, they will be less demagogic (i.e. cut way down on the zillions of 
mindless junk candy and/or attack ads/speeches).

I also note, as a mere reality check, that there are top 2 partisan runoff 
primaries in 10 States, very many nonpartisan top 2 primary winners and most 
of the time a general election winner who gets a majority of the votes 
(notable exceptions Mr. Lincoln in 1860 followed by a superbad Civil War and 
Mr. Clinton in 1992 and 1996 followed by a major gridlock in the U.S. 
government).

Good luck again to Mr. Ossipoff et al in trying to wipe out majority 
acceptable winners.