[EM] Query for Approval advocates

[Eric Gorr]

At 11:49 PM -0700 8/20/03, Bart Ingles wrote:
>Why should it be considered important to find a majority when none
>exists?  In my view, the very concept of 'majority' is meaningless when
>there are three or more candidates, and appears to be based on several
>logical fallacies including:
>
>(1) Round number fallacy:  The 50% figure is viewed as magical because
>it has the appearance of being a "natural" threshold.  Which it is--if
>there are only two candidates.

It is a natural threshold regardless of the number of candidates.

If > 50% of the population desire a certain option, that option 
should be selected despite of the number of other options out there.

>(2) Circular reasoning:  Majority proponents generally have a particular
>method in mind for arriving at a "majority".  This method is favored
>because it produces a majority, but the majority is defined in terms of
>the method.

This seems to be false as well.

Take this example:

   40:A
   35:C>B
   30:B

That I believe B should win, is independent of any particular method.

Why should B win?

Because it is obviously preferred by a majority of people over every 
other option.

Now, the fact that I can point to a method that will select B is a 
reason why I would prefer that method to a method that would select 
something other then B.

>(3) Equivocation:  The majority produced by a particular method is often
>touted as though it were equivalent to an outright majority of
>first-choice votes.

No, I would not say equivalent, but it is close enough that in the 
case above, the difference between equivalence and something else is, 
at best, elusive.

>But it would be easy to make a case that a
>candidate with a 49% plurality (or 45% or even 40%) really enjoys more
>public support in a 3-way race than someone with only 26% of
>first-choice votes and a similar number of 2nd-choice votes.

Ok, so you have an option where 49% of the population marks A first.
26% of the population marks B first.

However, we cannot stop there as we have not accounted for the other 
25% of the voters.

If all 25% prefer B over A, why should B not win?