IR elects Hitler?

Tue Nov 5 15:15:58 PST 1996

DEMOREP1 wrote:
>As Mr. Ossipoff well knows the simple Condorcet method only
>indicates relative support.
>He apparently would see no problem if the only candidates were
>Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan as long as Condorcet produced a
>winner detested the least. 

Mr. Eppley wrote---
Okay, Demorep, let's see an example where the simple Instant Runoff
method elects none of Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan when these
are the only candidates.  Else, you ought to amend your inconsistent
response to the EM sw poll. 

I am not in favor of the "simple Instant Runoff method".  See my Subj:  [ER]
Defects in various single winner methods, Date:  Sun, Oct 27, 1996 11:50 PM
The mere possibility of Condorcet circular ties with a bunch of majority
intolerable candidates is a formula for disaster. 
35 HG
33 GS
32 SH
H beats G, 67 to 33
G beats S, 68 to 32
S beats H, 65 to 35
Circular Tie---  H>G>S>H

With the lesser of 2 evils [3 evils in this case] tie breaker, H is elected
with a mere 65 percent of the voters against him in his worst (and only)

Opponents of any single winner reform will have a field  day in bringing up
even the remote possibility of such a result (i.e. scaring the sxxx out of
the average U.S. voter).

To those who say such example cannot happen, I note what happened in Germany
in 1932-1933. The Communists/Socialists joined with the Nazis to politically
destroy the moderates (based on the fatal miscalculation by the Communists
that the Communists would prevail in a showdown with the Nazis).  The Nazis
used the Reichstag Fire incident (as if some extremist gang burned the U.S.
Capitol) to totally crush the Communists and empower Hitler with dictatorial
powers in the infamous "Enabling Act" --- result-- 50 million plus dead in WW
II.  (The German [Weimar] Constitution also had a fatal provision allowing
the government to suspend various bill of rights provisions in such
Constitution in a time of so-called emergency. After the fire, such
suspension was in effect until May 7, 1945 when the regime was destroyed.)
 The point being that any election reform must be viewed in connection with
other structural parts of a constitution and possibilities based on
historical results.

For executive and judicial elections, I again suggest that there be a yes/no
vote on each candidate. 

In the above example assume that the yes/no results are the same as the head
to head results.
H yes 35, no 65
S yes 32, no 68
G yes 33, no 67
Each is rejected by a majority of the voters.  In other words, no "known"
evils get to be relatively ranked.  With some advance polling, such types of
candidates would not possibly even attempt to get their names on the ballot.
 The risk of having "unknown" evil executive/judicial candidates on the
ballot is one of many unpredictable risks.

It is the indirect minority rule in the various legislative bodies in the
U.S. existing as result of mostly plurality nominations, mostly plurality
elections and gerrymanders in electing the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and every State legislature that has created any "power
vacuum" (which is being filled by demagogic executive office candidates).   

With such demagogues being elected and having any sort of legislative powers
(such as veto powers), there is a direct threat of executive control of the
legislative process and thus a direct threat of getting a  monarchy- tyranny
(notwithstanding any claim to being a democracy, a republic, a people's
government, etc.). 

Thus, any single winner reform must be viewed in connection with its effect
on legislative bodies and the other parts of the constitution involved.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list