Approval's effect on candidates

[Narins, Josh]

I like to look at the Election of 1860.

I guess you liked Bell? Bell was the Constitutional Union Party candidate.
They won Virginia, Tenn., Kentucky, and maybe Texas. 

the CU party believed "Hey, Slavery is tearing the country apart, we are the
party of 'Slavery is not an issue'"

It was Sam Houston's party. I kinda like Sam.



-----Original Message-----
From: Bart Ingles [mailto:bartman at netgate.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 1:35 PM
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Approval's effect on candidates



The "centrist weasel" may be the better choice, depending on how you
define this term.  Suppose the population is divided on some polarizing
issue -- say abortion.  Say 40% are strongly pro choice, and another 40%
strongly against.  The middle 20% support a candidate who believes
abortion should be a legal right (including gov't-paid medical care,
where applicable) up to 12 weeks, and completely prohibited thereafter.
Finally, the fourth candidate takes no official position, and would
prefer not to involve government in the issue.

The first problem:  Which centrist is the strong leader?  Is it the one
with a definite policy to implement, or the one who refuses to take a
position?  I suppose you could take your pick -- maybe my example is
lacking.

The second problem:  I don't see where Approval and Condorcet would
differ in this example.  My guess is that both would pick the more
libertarian of the two centrists, as idealistic voters of both extremes
might find the more Solomon-like approach abhorrent.  But maybe not --
if voters are pragmatic enough to want to nail down at least some rights
for women and the unborn, they might choose Solomon regardless of the
voting system.

About the only difference I could see is that perhaps Condorcet would be
more accurate at differentiating between idealists and pragmatists --
but only if the pivotal voters are somewhat ambivalent between idealism
and pragmatism.  But then, was the choice made by the more accurate
method (idealist vs. pragmatist) the one previously defined as the
strong leader, or the weasel?


Perhaps someone can find a better example.  The only real-life example I
know of where Condorcet might have differed from Approval was the 1992
U.S. Presidential election.  (Brams? et al) estimated that Ross Perot
could not have won the election, due to his high negative ratings among
voters.  But it does seem possible that he could have won under
Condorcet (assuming that voters didn't truncate).  I suppose you *could*
call him a strong leader, but to me it doesn't seem to make the
candidate any more appealing.

Bart Ingles



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such.  All information is subject to change without notice.