[EM] Primaries?

[Adam Tarr]

Dave Ketchum wrote:

>  If a method is "good enough" to select a single winner in the general 
> election, then it must be good enough, and most logical choice, for use 
> in related primaries.

It does not follow.  An general election is a method the government uses to 
try to find a candidate who best represents the voters.  A primary election 
is a method a party uses to pick its candidate for a general election -- 
NOT simply to find the candidate who best represents the party's 
voters.  These two goals can be the same, but it does not logically follow.

>While the details are a bit different in primaries, the basic issue is to 
>select the best candidate as seen by the voters.

A party could end up shooting itself in the foot in the general election if 
it puts forth a candidate who can't win there, when another candidate 
can.  There's no reason (and, indeed, no legal right) to prevent a party 
from choosing an election method that reflects this.

>I would make one exception.  If the general election is stuck with an 
>outdated method, and a party is willing and able to move ahead - let it. 
>This could encourage updating the general election method.

As I implied above, I don't think that the government has a right to tell 
parties how to run their primaries.  They could provide very strong 
incentives (free air time, use of public polling equipment, et cetera) but 
fundamentally these are private organizations.  If a party wants to decide 
its candidate by plurality or IRV or salic primogeniture (first born son of 
the previous nominee) then they should be free to do so.

>But, there is a BIG related topic.  One feature of Plurality general 
>elections is that a party with multiple candidates likely loses to a party 
>with a single candidate.  Primaries are a method for each party to select 
>its single, hopefully best, candidate.
>      With Condorcet, or the better other methods discussed for the 
> general election, parties could be permitted two, or even more, 
> candidates in the general election - needing a primary only for an 
> excessively large set of candidates.

Absolutely, I agree with this.  The only reason for a party to narrow 
itself to one candidate in Condorcet is a desire to concentrate its PR 
machine behind one candidate, and reduce infighting.  Broadly speaking, as 
a voter, I'd much rather have every major party put forth at least three 
candidates in the general election.

>      Puzzle:  Assuming the above leads to Condorcet in the primary, to 
> select two candidates for the general election - WHY NOT?  the arguments 
> are not necessarily the same as related to electing two officers for PR.

Not necessarily, sure, but I don't think that Condorcet is clearly the best 
method to elect two candidates.  It seems likely that it would end up 
picking two candidates from the center of a party, and nobody from a wing 
(think Kerry and Edwards, in stead of Kerry and Dean).  But there have been 
some stabs taken at Condorcet-flavored proportional representation.  The 
best attempt is probably this one:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/10308

It's pretty complicated, but worth the read.  Try to sell that to the 
public, though...

-Adam