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

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well the "primary" was that the "condorcet party" would hold a
condorcet election.  By calling it a primary, it might get State
support.

> 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.

This is true, however, I don't see it as a major issue.  They could
either hold a primary anyway, or just pick a candidate.

>>
>>> 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.

Well, they wouldn't need a primary if the leadership just picked a candidate.

I guess the parties could still put up the 40 and 60 candidates.
However, I wonder if they would prefer the other party to win rather
than a compromise candidate.