[EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Greg Nisbet]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a
>> gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an
>> artificial monopoly on power.
>
> Do you consider making them legally compulsory (sore loser laws) and
> practically compulsory (via plurality) to be the same thing.

No. I think that primaries would be less important if they were not
legally compulsory. I think they would be used less frequently
>
> When you say making them voluntary, you meant by changing the voting system?

Not necessarily. By eliminating dumb ballot access and sore-loser
laws. What incentive would candidates have to participate in
primaries? If they did it for press coverage alone you might have more
than two primaries that compete for candidates or something.
>
>> There would be more competition at least.
>
> Why?  There would still only be one per major party.

The set of candidates who have a reasonable shot at winning but would
probably lose a primary under the dem or repub system would probably
make their own primary as a way of generating attention.
>
>>> 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 think you underestimate the ego of candidates. They probably would
>> run if they could.
>
> I think you need to define 'could' in this case.
>
> I mean legally allowed, but you seem to mean practically allowed.

Ah. A candidate would run if they were legally allowed to. A candidate
who isn't a diehard loyalist to his party probably wouldn't see much
point in stepping down graciously and letting the winner of the
primary slide into spot 1.5th place.

>
>> There's the anti-faithless elector law... but that isn't a transfer.
>> It's an insincere vote. You only get one shot at making your vote if
>> you are an elector. That makes it far inferior to even single winner
>> asset voting.
>
> I mean that the process would be

Ok... but you only get one shot. It has a potential to transfer once.
At best that makes it contingent vote.
>
> - Some Green Party members are elected as Electors
> - Greens Electors have balance of power
> - Greens + Republicans make a deal
> - Greens tell their electors to vote Republican
> - Green electors do as 'recommended' by their party leadership

perhaps this belongs on the asset voting thread.

anyway, this isn't quite as powerful as pure asset voting. It is like
contingent vote vs IRV.

cross-apply my asset voting arguments here.
>
>
>> No, it makes strategy the norm.
>
> Not for the voters, you just pick someone who you agree with and is
> good at negotiating.

the good at negotiating part is strategy, it does not matter if you
delegate it. Somewhere along the process strategic voting becomes
vastly more common. It has simply become so normal, so fundamental to
the system that not much is thought of it.
>
>> That would arguably make it easier, in fact incredibly simple, to vote
>> strategically, but do you actually want that to happen?
>
> The ideal voting system is one where you just tell it what you want
> and it picks the highest utility (or honest condorcet winner) and that
> there is no strategic incentive to lie.

They don't exist, sadly.
>
> This isn't possible to do except by a random method.
Yep.
>
>> Trusting voters is part of democracy. Why force them to trust candidates more?
>
> Well, the more electors that there are, the 'nearer' you can be to the
> elector and thus the more likely you can find someone who is
> trustworthy.

I am most near to myself. By any sensible definition, my distance from
myself is always zero. I know exactly what I want, why can't I be my
own elector instead of delegating the tasks to people wih increasingly
vaguer connections to me?