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

[Dave Ketchum]

My goal is using Condorcet, but recognizing that everything costs money, wo 
we need to be careful as to expenses.

Thus I see:
      Condorcet as the election method.
      But then see no value in a "condorcet party".
      Also then see no value in primaries, but know parties see value in such.
      And no value in runoffs - Plurality needs runoffs because of the way 
voters cannot express their thoughts - but Condorcet has no similar problem.


On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:28:55 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
> 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.
> 
What value might the state see as reason for paying for such?

What value might voters see in this?
> 
>>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.
>
Who does the "just pick" since voters can claim ownership of the right?

Who justifies paying expense of a primary here?
> 
>>>>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.

Now we are back to "who decides".

Part of all this is desire for a fair chance to win.
-- 
  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.