[Election-Methods] would range/approval have changed 2000?

CLAY SHENTRUP clay at electopia.org
Sat Dec 29 00:30:46 PST 2007

rob brown believes rv/av would have made no difference in 2000:
>  Nader would have thrown things to Bush in 2000 with Range just as he did under plurality.  Or with Approval, for that matter, because inevitably a lot of people who would have given Gore a Yes would give him a No if Nader was running (so they could express that they like Nader better than Gore). Only in your bizarro contrived-world would that not have happened. Think about that one.  Seriously, give it some thought.  Resist your urge to contrive a case where everyone bizarrely votes in unison, but think real world.  Would Nader's running have given Bush a strong advantage under Range and Approval?  My position is that anyone who says "no" is downright insane.

I respond:
What do you mean _if_ Nader was running?  Nader did run, garnering
97,488 votes.  With Range/Approval, those voters' best strategy would
have been to additionally vote for their favorite of the
"front-runners", meaning Gore would have won with Range or Approval,
so long as a mere *one half of one percent* of Nader voters had also
voted for him (plus enough to counter any who would have voted for
Bush).  So what you call "bizarro contrived", I call downright

Of course, if we want to get really technical, we could suppose that
more candidates would have run under RV, meaning possibly someone like
John McCain could have won, as an independent for instance.  I'm
obviously limiting this discussion to the candidates who actually ran
in the general.

I appreciate everyone else's comments on this, to assure me that I'm
not "downright insane".

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list