[EM] Re: Issues, Condorcet, and IRV (was: IRV vs. plurality)

[Alex Small]

Forest Simmons said:
> Even now "lefties" say that the media have a right wing bias, while
> "right wingers" say the media have a left leaning bias.
>
> This difference in perception is partly from different vantage points,
> but mainly from concern about different issue axes.

Good point.  However, I also think some of it is whining to cover
themselves.  Why admit that Gore ran a weak campaign when you can say that
the corporate media was too harsh on him?  Why admit that Republicans are
good at making themselves look bad when they can claim that the liberal
media is biased against them?

>         Democrat Elite  <----  one meter  ---->  Republican Elite
>
>                                   /\
>                                   |
>                                   |
>
>                                  one
>                                  mile
>
>                                   |
>                                   |  Libertarians
>                                   \/
>                           90 percent of
>                          the US electorate
>
>                         Greens

Good point.

It's often observed that every US Presidential election features one
candidate who portrays himself as "mad as all hell and not gonna take it
anymore!"  Every four years, without fail, this candidate fails to secure
a major party nomination (although he does secure my vote).  Whether or
not he truly cares about the issues that the rest of us care about (a
debatable point) he at least manages to strike a chord.  But the
nomination process is controlled by core constituencies, not the other 90%
of us.

Right now it looks like Howard Dean is the champion of people who are "mad
as all hell and not gonna take it anymore!"  Whether or not he is an
authentic advocate of "the rest of us" his public persona strikes a chord
among restless Democrats and even some independents (I'm thinking of
voting for him in the primary).  In 2000 it was McCain.  Whether or not
he's truly an advocate of the little guy (some would dispute that,
although I sympathize with him) he struck a chord.

In 1992 and 1996 it was, ironically, billionaire Ross Perot whose
platform, for good or for ill, was very different from anything on the
table in the major parties.  I'm not sure whether anybody really liked (or
even understood) his economic plan.  It might have been that we just liked
a feisty and eccentric guy who would go on Larry King with charts to show
how he's gonna fix things instead of parroting tired left or right
rhetoric that's been tested by focus groups and spin doctors.

Contrary to Donald's strategy prescription, I'll make my own prediction:

If we ever use Approval Voting in a Presidential race, at least one
maverick who's "mad as all hell and not gonna take it anymore!" will
attract significant attention.  While 80% of the voters will still approve
either Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber, 60% of the voters will approve the
guy who's gonna "stick it to the Man!"



Alex