<div>Dear Tijani,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A few comments on your remarks - knowing that I have accepted we run this election the traditional way. Thanks for keeping the discussion going. <br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA</b> <<a href="mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn">tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div>1. In all "democratic" elections, the second round doesn't require a<br>strong majority.</div></blockquote>
<div>Yes, it's just a boxing match to find a winner in all cases and this is why we end up with very slim majorities in many countries, that do not prevent the winner from not respecting the -strong- minority. You also have the US case of a president elected with a minority of votes pushing a strong right wing political agenda as if he were elected by a landslide vote. In addition, you usually do not count the "blank votes" (ie people who voted but refused to choose among the stupid two choices they were proposed). Finally, the abstention rate is growing in most "democratic countries". Result is, the heads of many countries are actually elected by about 35-40 % max of the voters at best.
</div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div><br>2. I have never heard about an election where people vote for 2<br>candidates to choose one.</div></blockquote>
<div>Is that a sufficient reason to refuse to study it if it provides solutions to the problems above ? Actually, the very reason I propose it is that it offers people the possibility to not only think about their favorite candidates but also to give a chance to another one that they bnelieve could be acceptable to a large majority. It's a way to explore how you can combine expression of personnal preferences and the caring of community interests.
</div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div><br>3. In case some of us vote for only one, the result will not reflect the<br>choice of the majority. It will be as if some vote twice, and the others<br>only once.</div></blockquote>
<div>Fair remark. I will get more thought to that.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div>4. In Bertrand's proposition, there are 2 cases where the calculation<br>will not mach.<br> </div></blockquote>
<div>Can you tell me more, I am looking for potential flaws and am not sure that I know the points you allude to. </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div>5. With Jacqueline's proposition, we will have a majority, even if it is<br>a very simple one. I think that it's better then any other kind of combination.</div>
<div> </div></blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">Better than a guaranteed 2/3 majority ? Is that what you mean ?</div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div dir="ltr">What ever the consensus will be, I will stick to it, especially because I<br>don't think that it will have a major impact on the work of the group,<br>and also because I don't want my friend Bertrand to be "sad"…
</div></blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">Thank you for caring. Sincerely. </div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">Looking forward to discussing that further with you.</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">Best</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">Bertrand</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br><br> </div>