<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Apr 28, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">2010/4/28 Peter Zbornik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pzbornik@gmail.com">pzbornik@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div>OK, thanks.</div> <div>Please go on to propose the condorcet, if you think it is the best.</div> <div> </div> <div>Approval voting was used in the French presidential election, first round, where far-right nationalist Le Pen got to the second round.</div> <div>Le Pen was hardly a centrist.</div> <div>See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting#Effect_on_elections" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting#Effect_on_elections</a></div> <div>Quote:"one study [16] showed that approval voting would not have chosen the same two winners as plurality voting (Chirac and Le Pen) in France's presidential election of 2002 (first round) - it instead would have chosen Chirac and Jospin. To some, this seemed a more reasonable result[citation needed] since Le Pen was a radical who lost to Chirac by an enormous margin in the second round."</div> <div> </div><font color="#888888"> <div>Peter</div></font><div><div></div><div class="h5"> <div> <br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I think you're misreading Wikipedia there. Approval was not used; the passage simply says that some suggest that if it HAD been used, the results would have been better.<br> <br>JQ</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Read the quote carefully. A bunch of centrist candidates split up the centrist Plurality vote, allowing for the two non-centrist winners to inspire all kinds of threats from unhappy centrist voters. While Approval would have helped some centrists do better, Condorcet promises to hear the voters better.</div></body></html>