[EM] plurality isn't so bad

Dave Ketchum daveket2001 at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 23 01:13:09 PST 2005


Mention of Vito caught my eye - seems he was involved in an electoral
puzzle:

Minor parties in New York are protected by law against invasion by
major party candidates.  If someone wants to be a candidate for a party
they are not enrolled in, it is not enough that voters sign their
petitions - party leadership in the target party must also approve.

Target parties do, often, approve - candidates like running on multiple
lines, for NY's fusion means votes from all their nominations get added
together.

BUT, how did the major parties get so generous - they, and not the
minor parties, do the laws?  Turns out they were, desperately, trying
to evict Vito from Congress (failed, but they left the law on the
books).  

Vito was POPULAR in his corner of New York City.  So, when he expressed
interest in being a Congressman, it happened.

Came time for reelection and his party, naturally, did petitions.  But,
some of his friends were Republicans and some were Democrats, so they
also did petitions - made the campaigning easy.

Some called Vito Communist - embarrassing that NY was sending such to
Congress.  MUST be fixed.  Therefore the law that could be used to
restrict Vito to running on one line.  Congressman Vito got to laugh
when this did not prevent reelection.

Need stronger medicine.  Put a competitor on three lines, including
Republican and Democrat.  This did retire Vito.
------------------------------------

Seems "Plurality" has two meanings:
     You were into winning with less than a majority vote.  Winner CAN
be good, for less than good should not have been a candidate.  Winner
may even be best-liked for, with many candidates, there may be no
majority choice.
     My topic was the election method in which each voter is restricted
to backing a single candidate.  Too often other methods, letting each
voter back multiple candidates, do better at electing the best-liked
candidate.

Ranking a few methods:
     I like Condorcet for letting voters rank candidates, and doing
well at sorting out best-liked.
     IRV uses the same ballot, usually picks the same winner, but
sometimes fails to do as well.
     Approval is better than Plurality, for it permits approving
multiple candidates, but does not let the voter pick out best-liked.

DWK

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:46:27 -0800 (PST) ban at richardwinger.com wrote:

> I know it contradicts a core assumption of many
> members of this group, but plurality winners aren't
> always so terrible.  Some presidents who have been
> elected with only a plurality of the US popular votes
> were among our best presidents, while some who were
> elected with huge majorities were among our worst.
> 
> The plurality popular vote winners include Polk
> (instrumental for getting Texas into the U.S., a mixed
> blessing?), Taylor (who helped California be admitted
> into the union, a clear blessing), Lincoln the first
> time, Garfield, Cleveland both times, Wilson both
> times, Truman, Kennedy, Nixon the first time (he did
> his best work in his first term...going to China,
> Family Assistance Plan), and Clinton both times.
> 
> Getting elected with majorities were Pierce (who
> disastrously signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854),
> Grant both times, Harding, Coolidge, Nixon the 2nd
> time.
> 
> Of course, this should not be confused with the
> miserable presidential elections in which someone who
> didn't even get a plurality still took the office
> (J.Q. Adams, Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W.
> Bush the first time).
> 
> Jesse Ventura, Lowell Weicker, and Walter Hickel, the
> only three governors elected in minor party tickets in
> the last fifty years, all won with pluralities.  I
> doubt they could have won if there had been a
> majority-vote requirement.  The last third party
> victory in a US House race (New York in 1948, Vito
> Marcantonio), ahd the last third party victory in a US
> Senate race (New York 1970, James Buckley) were also
> instances of plurality winners.
> 
> --- Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Plurality should be more recognized as a loser - too
> easy to get two
> candidates on side X of an issue and one on side Y. 
> Assuming
> popularity of X and Y is any place near a tie, the X
> candidates will
> share the X votes, and the Y candidate will win due to
> no sharing,
> rather than needing to be more popular than side X.

-- 
 davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
 Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
           Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                 If you want peace, work for justice.




	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list