[EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is.  There would be some
>> candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't.  It
>> only works for very popular candidates.  A reasonable number of
>> candidates wouldn't be able to pull it off.
>
> Just because they can't pull it off won't stop them from trying. I
> think the only reason candidate accept the results of primaries is
> because they are forced to. The obstacles facing an independent
> candidate are formidable. They aren't prevented from running for want
> of trying.

Right, but there is a difference between being prevented due to
logistical problems and it being illegal.

> What I am saying is, without legal force, primaries would be very
> different. I was trying to say that my earlier criticism of primaries
> does not apply to this because it candidates are not coerced into
> participating in the primary.

Candidates aren't coerced into participating in the primaries, they do
it because the want the party nomination.

If the parties ran their own private primaries, then they candidates
would still have to participate if they want the nomination.

> They can run without participating at
> all in the world absent the add-ons to FPTP.

I think you underestimate the value of having a major party nomination
in FPTP.  No matter how it works, the nomination of one of the two
major parties is almost essential to winning.  The only people who
might be able to get around it are previous winners/incumbents.

> I said this because I don't see it accomplishing anything. First of
> all the current system does not allow transfers, so that is pretty
> much out of the question. Second I don't think it's going to give so
> much power to people who weren't elected by name in the first place.

It does allow transfers.  If you were elected as an Elector for the
Green party, you are perfectly allowed to vote for the Republican
candidate and can accept instructions based on the outcome of the
Green-Republican negotiations.  Ofc, in some states, that would be
illegal.

> I'm not sure that any modfication to asset voting is sufficient to
> solve your problem. I think the faults that plague IRV plague Asset
> Voting as well (albeit to a lesser extent because of the restrictions
> placed on who you can vote for).

Some of the benefits are that the votes are transferred based on
intelligence/tactics, this makes it potentially more resistant to
strategy.

Think of it like declared strategy voting, except you pick a person to
implement your strategy.

> Compared to FPTP, it is about as expressive except you haven't a clue
> how your vote will transfer in the future.

If you vote for one of the expected top-2, you would probably be sure
that he would keep your vote.

Trusting elected officials is part of representative democracy.