[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.
>
>Perhaps I live in an odd state, but New York's Board of Elections DOES our 
>elections.

I imagine this is common, but they are really doing the primary on behalf 
of the party.  The party could decide to not have a primary, just as the 
state could decide to not do the party the favor of administering it.

>Anyway, big deal is that it is good for the voters to understand the 
>method used, and that is more practical if both elections use the same method.

Probably true, but as I said before I wouldn't mind multiple winners, and 
the goals of the elections are not exactly the same.

>>>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outdated method, and a party is willing and able to move ahead - let it.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.
>
>I do not see where I gave you an excuse for this paragraph.

Well, when you said, "[If] a party is willing and able to move ahead - let 
it", that implied to me that you thought the government had the right to 
not let them.

>>>      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...
>
>As I said above, we are not doing PR, so almost certainly would not find 
>such complication worth the pain.

Probably not, but this does not imply that pure iterative single-winner is 
the best approach, either.  A good compromise (in my opinion) would be the 
sequential variant of the method described in the link.  So, first you find 
the CW, then you find the best two-candidate slate with the CW in it, then 
you find the best three-candidate slate with those two candidates in it, 
and so on until you've generated as much of the order as you need.