[EM] voter strat & 2-party domination under Condorcet voting

[Abd ulRahman Lomax]

At 04:07 PM 8/13/2005, RLSuter at aol.com wrote:
>As an example of strategic campaigning, Ralph Nader could have
>used a strategy in either 2000 or 2004 involving campaigning
>strongly up to and through the fall TV debates but promising to
>withdraw after the debates if polls had shown that he had no
>chance of winning.

Actually, "promise to withdraw" is unnecessary, strategically. Actual 
withdrawal would have been the issue. I was very much thinking that Nader 
might withdraw at the last minute in 2000. But he did not, and probably, 
compared to what he might have done, thereby dealt the Green party a huge 
setback....

What he could have done was to announce, shortly before the election, that 
he saw no possibility that he could win the election itself. Therefore, he 
was asking all those who would have voted for him to instead vote for X but 
send a small donation, perhaps $5, to a special Green party campaign fund 
to prepare for 2004. The numbers of donations for that fund would have made 
a credible point underscoring what exit polls might have shown, and might 
have benefited the Green party even more for the next election....

Those Nader voters who could not stomach X, who could not accept Nader's 
recommendation, could still have voted for Nader....

And if, say, Gore had said something like "Take your Green Party and stuff 
it," Nader could have made sure that this response was public and could 
have washed his hands of the election results.... Instead, I can vouch for 
the fact that many progressive voters are totally disgusted by Nader's 
cavalier disclaimer of any responsibility for the 2000 outcome (which led 
also to the 2004 outcome; incumbents do have an advantage, usually, 
especially in times of crisis).