<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'>
<pre><br>Ted:<br><br>You wrote:<br><br>But are these the criteria we really want to achieve in a<br>single-winner election? To say that LNH is the most important<br>criterion is, at its most basic level, an emotional argument. <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>I like LNHa compliance because, in addition to majority-rule, it's<br>important to deal with the relation of candidates and voters _within_<br>a potential majority. Compliance with LNHa and CD facilitates better<br>intra-majority co-operation.<br><br>You continued:<br><br> While<br>effective in persuading the electorate, I think what we really want to<br>look for is a method that does a good job of finding the candidate<br>closest to the center of the electorate<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Sure. That's another way of saying that we want some kind of majority-rule<br>protection. SFC, SDSC, WDSC, 3P, 1CM, MMC, for example.<br><br>You continued:<br><br>, while resisting strategic<br>manipulation.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>The academics like to say that, but, when they do, they're<br>getting it backwards. Strategy isn't, primarily, something to<br>resist. Primarily, defensive strategy is a need that should be<br>minimized. Secondarily, one thing that can cause defensive strategy<br>need is offensive strategy. But some methods have horrendous defensive<br>strategy need without any offensive strategy being used: Plurality<br>and IRV. So, plainly, "resisting strategy" isn't the primary problem.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br></pre> </div></body>
</html>