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

[Michael Allan]

Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> 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".

Or the parallel electoral system ("Condorcet party") might undertake a
"hostile takeover" of the other parties.  It would appeal to their
members and cherry-pick their candidates.  (But I'm uncertain how this
would play out in a PR context, unfamiliar to me.)  It might attract
candidates by the chance to "be their own parties", or maybe just to
be independent of any party.  It might attract members (voters) by the
ease of shifting votes across party lines, opening up a wider field of
candidates to them.  (So it would be like a market fair, with
independent vendors.)

Also, in a parliamentary context, the parallel system might vote
nation-wide "confidence" in a candidate for Prime Minister.  People
would then expect Parliament to follow suit.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/