A What-If: Condorcet in 1996

[donald at mich.com]

Dear Methods list,

The following letter came to me. I am forwarding it to you. It is not clear
if the author is another supporter of Condorcet - but he thinks that Ross
Perot would have won the Presidential election if Condorcet would have been
the election method used. I'm betting on the local pairwise guys to
manipulate the election so that their hero, Nader, will be the winner.

Donald
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>Here's a great letter i found in Usenet that i'm forwarding.   --James
>
>
>: I am curious as to people's opinions on this subject:
>
>: Assume that in the 1996 election, each candidate had had total name
>: recognition and the same amount of funds.  Assume further that the
>: election was done via Condorcet's method (a form of Single-Transferrable
>: Vote) and there were no write-in ballots.  Who would have been elected?
>
>: My opinion is that it would probably have been Ross Perot.  I think Ross
>: Perot would have had a good chance of winning even without equal name
>: recognition and funds, if it were by Condorcet's Method.  Here are my
>: predictions on the order in which the candidates would finish.
>
>: 1) Perot
>: 2) Clinton
>: 3) Dole
>: 4) Hagelin
>: 5) Browne
>: 6) Nader
>: 7) Phillips
>: 8) others
>
>: Obviously, I have my own set of pre-conceived notions, as does everyone
>: else.  I am curious to see if a consensus will develop, though.
>
>: Nathaniel Y. Krause
>
>--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -