[EM] Typo: DMC, not "DOC"

[Chris Benham]

Below is my previous post, corrected:

Warren,

> Incidentlally, since you claim because you cannot explain the precise 
> meaning of a range vote
> of 64 versus 65, therefore range voting is somehow horribel and 
> inexplicable...
> and you like DMC...  I ask "explain to me the precise meaning of
> `I approve of Bush.'"
>
> Pretty difficult, isn't it?   And also probably strategy dependent - 
> it depends who
> are Bush's opponents, in practice.   All of this is quite analogous to 
> range vote
> values.   (Annoyance mission completed.)
> wds
>
I dislike plain Approval because it more-or-less forces voters to 
concern themselves with strategy and the winning probabilities of
the candidates. Using a concept of  absolute inflexible "approval" in a 
method like DMC  I used to object to on the same grounds.
But now I see that it is mathematically convenient  and seems to  
resonate in the real world.

My attempt to "precisely" define  "I approve of  Bush":
" If  the ballot constrains me to equally help a set of candidates 
(which I nominate) to defeat any non-member candidates, I  put Bush
in that set. I prefer Bush to any candidate that I don't approve."



Chris  Benham