[EM] RE: Unranked ballot election challenge

[Tom Ruen]

Demorep,

I agree that when there is no majority candidate, then majority preference
can not be clearly judged.

Plurality, Approval, IRV, Condorcet all can fail to find a majority winner
if voters don't support enough candidates on their ballots.

I tend to agree that exhausted ballots should be maintained under NOTA
(None-of-the-Above).

Our difference comes in that:
You say there should be no winner if there is no majority.
I say there should be no winner if the NOTA vote "wins" the plurality.

Under instant runoff, this means if NOTA reaches second place and then
eliminating all but one candidate reveals the remaining candidate is in the
majority.

If any candidate has plurality over NOTA, that candidate has some legitimacy
to me.

If NOTA wins a majority, then I would follow Nader's suggestion, and demand
a new election with new candidates.

The purpose of a NOTA vote empowers voters to reject all the candidates. If
a 50% majority do this, then majority really wants NOTA.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: <DEMOREP1 at aol.com>
To: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:15 PM
Subject: [EM] RE: Unranked ballot election challenge


> Mr. Ruen wrote-
>
> Well, so here we have a case to consider. B has more core supporters than
A,
>
> and A has more compromise supporters from C. Splitting votes compared to
>
> full votes makes a difference.
>
>
> Which result more accurately represents voter preference?
> --
> D- Clarification.
>
> *IF* there is a majority of ALL of the voters, then the highest majority.
>
> If there is NO majority (of ALL of the voters), then there should be NO
> winner (for executive and judicial elections and voting on conflicting
> issues).  The default should always be deemed to be *NO* (i.e. NOTA).
>
> P.R. for legislative bodies is a separate problem (where minorities are
> expected to win seats).