what is an example of the majority method in voting?
what is an example of the majority method in voting? what criterion states that the majority candidate winner should always win the election? what is the borda count method in voting?
unit 1 study guide  section 1: voting methods \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ key concepts: plurality method: the candidate with the most votes wins the election majority method: the candidate with more than half of the votes wins (51%) ceiling function: a symbol used to signify rounding up the number within the bracket preference table: a table displaying the ranking of candidates borda count method: candidates are ranked and then given points according to their rankings plurality with elimination: if there is not a majority winner in the original problem, the  candidate with the least amount of first place votes is eliminated causing the other candidates  within the table to shi
the left prefers the traditional way of winning elections, getting the most votes. there is already enough evidence to either require another election in some states (which there may not be time for) or require the state party convention (which are often controlled by republicans) to make a decision due to the issues laid out in the legal arguments. trump's team has very valid points and evidence to back up those points. legal process is necessary for legitimacy, but any judge who strictly interprets the law will side with trump’s team. due to the media’s propaganda campaign, i’m sure many judges would be concerned about the ramifications of the legal outcome, but ultimately they have to do their job as arbiters of the law. so trump should win his lawsuits even if the supreme court has to make the final decision. republicans are likely, but not guaranteed to be loyal to their party. trump will likely win in the end... either way, as of now no votes have been certified. if we examine those states that have generally finished their vote counts and have no legal contest at the moment then the current electoral vote count would be 227 biden vs 229 trump. so technically trump is currently winning even if the mainstream media wants to brainwash you into believing something else. in order to have the election process more democratic there are few pre-requisites like:a. one vote, one value: to choose/elect the representative everyone must have one note with equal value. this is to avoid any type of conflicting situation.b. regular election: there should be regular elections in every democratic country so that people have their choice at regular intervals.c. free and fair election: in order to ensure a fair chance to the people there should be a free and fair election in every democratic country.d. political competition: in order to have democratic election parties, candidates should be free to contest elections and should offer some real choice to the voters. people do vote, regardless if they cast a ballot. silence can be thought of as a vote. the reason i say this is that i chose not to vote out of no confidence for the ballot. i would either have voted for something in which i did not believe, or i couldn't "thrown away" with a 3rd party vote, in which i still didn't believe.there is no write in option for "no confidence," and interestingly, if enough people voted this way, the way american voting works, would require either the candidates to all be thrown out, and a new set of candidates, or the government would make their own choice, at which point democracy would be dead. if we look at voting in this manner, it most certainly is compulsory. however, america has an odd obsession of thinking that the common man's vote for president actually matters. local votes will influence politics for a person far more than a presidential vote ever will. this is why many localities have gerrymandering, in order to control the constituency and votes.i personally do not believe my vote will ever make a difference, as it never has in any political election. besides, perpetuating the idea that the common man isn't controlled by our plutocratic corporatist "democracy" is silly, but people will keep on voting and believing that they matter, or are heard. perhaps my view is cynical and pessimistic. i see no reason to change it.c'est la vie. depends on what evidence of voting fraud is presented and how that is addressed by the courts. well that is one campaign promise that he kept. 
he spread out tax money around to all the wealthy elite billionaires bailing out their corporations so that they didn't take any loses on their bad investments.

billionaire buffet backs obama and recently he bought a huge stake in bac. obama likes bailing out big banks where millionaires and billionaires have their money invested.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/17/us-obama-buffet-idustre6ag4mu20101117
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/warren-buffetts-rule-give-big-to-get-obama-re-elected/
billionaire buffet is a liberal and endorsed obama and senator clinton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnokdcldrps
billionaire oprah winfrey is a liberal and endorsed obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oprah\_winfrey's\_endorsement\_of\_barack\_obama
billionaire bill gates is a liberal and backed obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng3vrx0tuok
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544\_162-20025626-503544.html
billionaire george soros is a liberal and backed obama
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/george-soros-backs-obama-but-hedges-his-bets/

now we know why all these billionaires backed obama

@ hally m
obama did say that he liked spreading the wealth around. listen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooqi5psrcxm Our democratic system was originally setup to involve as many parties as possible. In fact, George Washington warned in his farewell address about the establishment of parties at all and advised that they not be formed. In practice, however, two parties were able to dominate by the mid-19th century.   

  

Today, the most viable option for third parties exist in states that allow candidates to run on multiple party tickets. A great example of this is the Working Families party in New York State. The Working Families party nominates candidates, usually on the democratic line, who can be voted for under the Working Families ticket instead of Democratic -- to give the politicians the message that they care about social issues for working families. The party is able to exert significant influence by refusing to endorse candidates who do not stand up for working families -- and has cost several candidates their seats because of their failure to earn the party's endorsement.   

  

Note that these third parties have primaries of their own that are sanctioned by the state.   

  

That said, parties like this are the ones paving the way towards BALLOT REFORM, which if instituted would open up the field to more parties who can gain real influence. Vermont or New Hampshire are seen as the states most likely to institute this first. the quickie answer is that, if the two armies are equal in resources, abilities and training, then the one with the largest number will win.

however, that's for a single battle. 

in real life, it's a matter of which force can bring to bear the greater force (position, resources, power) at specific points. then, in that local area, the greater force will always win. this is why the spartans at thermopylae could hold back an army of tens of thousands with only 300 men -- the persians could not bring their superior force (more men and other resources) to bear on what should have been a skirmish. yes, the persians eventually won, but at the price of being able to beat the athenian forces later, and even then, it was a matter of someone betraying the spartans.

in wwii, the germans should have won the battle of britain, which would have kept the russians and americans out of the war. but britain could use its resources better in the actual field (i know --it was mostly an aerial battle) and hence beat the germans back, preventing the superior forces from invading the islands and getting control of enough resources to conquer at least half the world.

in the american civil war, the confederacy should have won, because they had the better army and resources, but eventually, the union could bring more into play than they could, and turned the tide.

also look at israel's "six day war" -- out numbered and our resourced, they beat the arab coalition easily -- same basic principles...

so, not so much luck as being better able to use the resources available.

btw, read sun tzu's art of war -- being able to use your resources better than your opponent can mean that a smaller force beats the larger one the voting & ratings system is very different.

you get ratings usually from the other answerers on that question, & votes come from people who go to the vote section to vote on multiple questions for some extra points.

there are also answerers who vote for themselves, & yes, some of them do cheat & use email to tell their friends which answers to vote on. i've seen it done many times. you can pick 1 senior in 5 ways, 1 junior in 4 ways, 1 sophomore in 3 ways and i freshman in 2 ways.
in all you can make these selections i 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 ways = 120 ways.
 
please note: selecting a committee is a "combination" problem, not a "permutation".