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

[Dave Ketchum]

Michael Allen started this thread on 9/06, about having an alternative 
electoral system, in parallel, to do better on "the 'who' and the 'what'".

It would avoid restriction to party candidates.

That detail puzzles, since I see Plurality used with non-party candidates 
running and sometimes winning.

Having both a standard system and an alternative system in use at the same 
time puzzles and turns me off.

Now Condorcet gets mentioned, as if a party.  At this point I argue for 
making Condorcet the electoral system in use.  Quoting Rapf:
     "Once the condorcet winner can credibilly claim to be one of the 
top-2, then the condorcet primary almost becomes the final election."

Certainly both party and non-party candidates would be permitted in 
Condorcet.  If primaries were also used, parties would nominate only 
primary winners.  This would not prevent primary losers from running as 
non-party candidates.

Note that proper campaign emphasis is different in Condorcet:
      NOT:  Look at all the horns on my competitors - please vote for me 
instead of them.
      SAY:  I do not object to your voting for those of my competitors who 
have some good points - please just rank me higher because my good points 
deserve that.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:25:37 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
> On 9/26/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km-elmet at broadpark.no> wrote:
> 
>> It seems this system would be more stable than I originally thought. Third
>>parties could run as parts of the Condorcet party without running much of a
>>risk, since they would otherwise get no votes at all. The defection danger
>>surfaces when the third parties have become sufficiently large from using
>>that parallel electoral system. Then a party that would win a plurality vote
>>but who isn't a Condorcet winner has an incentive to defect.
> 
> 
> If the condorcet party winner can realistically claim to be one of the
> top-2, then it doesn't matter as he will defeat any challeger.  Both
> the 2 main parties would have to defect.
> 
> The question is at what level of support does this becomes self-reinforcing.
> 
A desire to defect can always happen, but when except as part of hurting 
someone else - who would object to such?

One of the strongest arguments I have heard against using Condorcet in the 
election and doing away with primaries, is a party desire to use primaries 
to decide who to back in the election.
> 
>> Following that kind of reasoning, it would appear that conventional parties
>>have very little to lose by running Condorcet primaries instead of Plurality
>>primaries, more so if there's an open primary. (So why don't they?)
> 
As to open, either:
      Party wants the primary to pick one if its members to be backed.
      Party wants its members to do the selecting of who to back.
> 
> The current parties don't want to elect a condorcet winner, they want
> to elect a winner that is biased towards them.
> 
> The 2 candidates in a 2 party system have to balance support of their
> party with defeating the other candidate.
> 
> In the single issue case with voters ranging from 0 to 100, the 2
> parties pick at 25 and 75, but the condorcet winner is at 50.
> 
> The final result might be 2 candidates at say 40 and 60 as they have
> to balance the 2 requirements.  This can be seen as candidates switch
> the focus of their campaign once they have won nomination.
> 
> Anyway, I would agree that an open primary would be key for the
> condorcet party.  In states with a closed primary can a party allow
> non-party members to vote if it wishes?  Would this block those voters
> from voting in their 'real' party?
> 
> Another problem is actually getting the main candidates to
> participate.  I assume it would be legal to add them to the ballot
> without their permission?
> 
> Finally, turnout at the condorcet primary matters.  If only a small
> number of people vote, then it is much less evidence that the winner
> is the real condorcet winner.  One option would be to re-weight votes
> so that the result is representative.
> 
> If the consequences of the result of the vote is not massive, then
> there is little point in bothering to vote.  So, there needs to be
> some kind of boot-strap.
> 
> Once the condorcet winner can credibilly claim to be one of the top-2,
> then the condorcet primary almost becomes the final election.
> Certainly, winning the condorcet primary would be a major boost to any
> candidate.
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.