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

[Raph Frank]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, the advantage is that it might be a way to effectively get
condorcet without the need to first switch away from plurality.


> What value might the state see as reason for paying for such?
>

Don't the states currently part fund the party primaries?

> What value might voters see in this?

No that much.  One advantage is that they don't have to fully switch
to a new voting system.  They get to see how it works first.

> Who does the "just pick" since voters can claim ownership of the right?

Would depend on the party, they would need to have rules for doing the
selection.

> Who justifies paying expense of a primary here?

The party gets to claim that it respects the opinion of the voters,
and also picking a more popular candidate increases the chance of
winning.

>> 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".

Each party decides.  I meant that even if there was condorcet, the 2
parties would still pick candidates somehow, so there would be 2 major
candidate, neither of which would be a condorcet winner based purely
on policies.

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

The parties are always going to be able to help their candidate win.