[EM] the 'who' and the 'what'

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Michael Allan wrote:
> Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>> If you take the parallel system strategy to its extreme, you'd get a 
>> "parallel organization" where (as an example), a group elects a "double 
>> mayor" and support him over the real mayor, essentially building a state 
>> inside the state. I don't think that's very likely to happen, though; as 
>> hard it may be to alter the nation through voting, it's going to be even 
>> harder to make a duplicate state from nothing, and that duplicate state 
>> would still have to abide by the laws of the real state.
> 
> Or the leading mayoral candidates of the parallel system might
> subsequently place themselves on the ballot of the City system.
> People would expect more-or-less equivalent results.  They would
> expect the City system to reflect and ratify their prior choices.
> Then the two electoral systems would not be competitive (as I
> implied).  They would be in synergy. The parallel system would be
> feeding candidates into the City system.  Its function in that context
> would be indentical to that of the party electoral systems.  It would
> occupy the same political "niche".  So the competition would be there,
> in that niche.
> 
> Similar arguments can be applied to a parallel legislature.  Popular
> parallel legislation would naturally find its way onto the legislative
> agenda of the state.  Unpopular state legislation would naturally be
> voted down in the parallel legislature.  Party discipline might be
> undermined.

That is interesting. Perhaps one could have, for example, a "Condorcet 
party" that pledges to run the Condorcet winner of an earlier internal 
election for president. Then various small parties could nominally join 
up with the Condorcet party, and that party would hold an election (a 
primary of sorts).

The effects predicted by game theory would be a problem, though. A 
losing party could think that "hey, if I run independently, I may get a 
share, no matter how small, and that's better than the 0% chance I have 
if I stay under the Condorcet party umbrella".

There would also be a duplication of effort since the Condorcet party 
would have to manage its own (secret ballot) elections.