[EM] Fwd: Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Greg Nisbet]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Making a Bad Thing Worse
To: Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com>


On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> =Potential competition is also relevant. Primaries are unlikely to put
>> forward unpopular candidates if a popular loser could potentially
>> shoot them in the foot. This would give primaries more incentive to
>> pick someone favorable to the entire electorate, rather than the
>> faction that chose to participate in their primary.
>
> Well there is some tactics involved.  However, the person who receives
> the party's nomination has a massive advantage.  There is a large
> number of voters who will vote based purely on the party nomination.
> Thus, in order not to split the votes, the rest of the party's
> supporters would need to vote for that candidate too.

Do we at least agree that the primary system will be weakened? My
point is that primary winners will tend to be more popular. If the
winner was too centrist, another individual would bypass the primary
and start campaigning like crazy for the voters for whom the centrist
candidate was unsatisfactory. On the either hand, if the primary
winner was too extremist, significant portions of the party would be
alienated, thus allowing a different candidate to scoop up supporters.
Either way, the equilbrium in the primary system would be shifted
towards candidates with greater popular support.
>
>> =How do the parties nominate individuals in the UK?
>
> It is decided by the central/national party leadership and there is
> some consultation with the local party members.

I see... no primaries at all...

>
>> =Why can't a represent myself with an IRV ballot? It isn't a big
>> stretch of the imagination for me to delegate my vote to a program,
>> essentially. Or should I be limited to casting a vote for someone who
>> can actually win the election?
>
> You could probably vote for someone who has declared how they intend
> to transfer.

That is a bit inconvenient, why can't I transfer it to an IRV ballot?
Also, am I allowed to do this or do I have to vote for a person?
>
> The idea with Asset is that you are delegating to someone who has a
> mind, rather than a set of rules.
>
Right. I can if I want to.