<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<br>Kevin--<br><br>No matter how unconventional a balloting format you suggest, or how bizarre and unproposable a method of determining who<br>wins, this definition will apply and mean something. It also works fine for all methods that have been used or proposed:<br><br>Definition of voting x over y:<br><br>You're voting x over y if switching x and y on your ballot is more likely to change the winner from x to y than from y to x.<br><br>[end of definition of voting x over y]<br><br>In all actually proposed or used methods, it's always obvious that one is a lot more likely than the other. But you might propose<br>a method in which that isn't so. You might propose a method in which it's unknowable whether, by my definition, you're voting<br>x over y or voting y over x. But such a method could hardly be called a voting system. The whole point of voting is that, at least probably,<br>you're helping someone against someone else.<br><br>If you like, "more likely" could be defined by, or replaced by, "consistent with more configurations of other voters' ballots", but such<br>a change isn't necessary.<br><br>If you propose a voting system in which, by my definition, it's unknowable whether you're voting x over y, or voting y over x, that's ok, <br>as long as Rob Richie doesn't spend enough to get it enacted somewhere.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br> </div></body>
</html>