Some brief campaign argument

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Ranking of pairs (or anything else) does NOT show any *absolute* support (on 
a plus 100 percent to minus 100 percent scale).

There are at least 3 tables floating around in multiple choice elections--

1. Absolute Scale Table (100 percent to minus 100 percent) (with variants 
such as limited scale votes with a maximum ranking of at least twice the 
number of choices --- i.e. having a possible top half and bottom half)

2. Head to Head (Condorcet) Table (for Number Vote rankings)

3. Place Votes Table (the number of Number Votes in places for each choice 
--- 1st, 2nd, etc. place)

The question is how much complexity is desired in ANY reform method ---- that 
will get standard *dismissive* / attack comments by incumbent plurality 
winner incumbents and the few brighter minds in the editorial departments of 
the mass media (to say nothing of comments about *any* proposed reforms that 
will be forthcoming from the *academics* in math and political science 
departments in higher education).

It is due to the semi-brain dead simplicity of Plurality that it has survived 
since elections for members of the English/ U.K. House of Commons since the 
1200's.

*ANY* complexity is difficult for *some/many* voters (such as the many 
political morons in the 2000 Florida President election).