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

[RLSuter at aol.com]

Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote Aug 15 13:22:50 PDT 2005:

>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....

The promise is important because voters need to know what the
candidate plans to do depending on the outcome of the debates
and the post-debate poll results. If the candidate won't commit to
withdrawing if there's no chance of winning, whether unconditionally
or only in exchange for concessions, voters will be much less
likely to support the candidate prior to the debates and the
candidate will have a much smaller chance of getting into
the debates. Voters who worry that the candidate will enable
their least favorite candidate to win need to be assured that
that it will be safe to support the candidate up to the debates,
knowing he or she will withdraw if there is no chance of winning.

If you think this through as a scenario, I think you will agree
that the candidate has to explain his or her conditional withdrawal
strategy to potential supporters and pledge to follow through on
that strategy in order for it to have much of a chance of working.

-Ralph Suter