[EM] Classifying 3-cand scenarios. LNHarm methods again.

[Dave Ketchum]

Somehow this thread forgot its primary address - sorry.

On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:04 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> Dave, i think you meant to respond to the EM list, not?
>
> i think you and i are on the same side, i just would not expect  
> adopting Preferential Voting (be it Condorcet or IRV or something  
> else) to replace primaries.  nor that it should replace primaries.

With Plurality voters can vote for only one.  There two candidates  
nominated by one party would be seen as clones to any voter wanting to  
vote for the party's candidate, being an intolerable handicap to such.

With such as Condorcet voters can vote for  multiple candidates,  
removing the necessity for primaries.

You seem to see a remaining necessity - which is?  I am ready for  
parties to do whatever they find most useful in campaign season, and  
in preparing for that.
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:40 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:21 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 2010, at 1:30 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would go to Condorcet:
>>>>  Forget primaries - Condorcet can tolerate clones and voters  
>>>> should be able to learn related voting.
>>>>  I would do less runoffs - voters can more completely express  
>>>> their desires.
>>>
>>> there is nothing wrong with primaries (or some other nomination  
>>> procedure, like caucus meetings) as long as there are parties.   
>>> it's up to the parties to determine how many and who they want to  
>>> endorse and put forth for office.  for me, the whole issue is with  
>>> having more than two viable parties and having other independent  
>>> credible candidates.  if we cannot get past the two-party system,  
>>> we are sometimes stuck with Dumb and Dumber.  and that's a lousy  
>>> choice.  ironically (and sadly), in Burlington our choice in the  
>>> repeal election was between Dumb (IRV) and Dumber (40%+ Plurality  
>>> or delayed runoff).
>>>
>> Trying for more clarity:
>>
>> Plurality could not tolerate clones - so parties could not afford  
>> multiple candidates - so primaries have been the way to help  
>> parties to each offer only a single candidate to the main election  
>> - problem of two parties offering clones together has remained.
>>
>> Methods such as Condorcet can properly attend to clones, thus  
>> eliminating necessity for primaries when such an election method is  
>> used.
>>
>> You offer the point that, with no necessity as described above, a  
>> party could choose some procedure to reduce its number of  
>> candidates at the main election.  Agreed - a possible reason would  
>> be to reduce the candidate count early and concentrate party effort  
>> on remaining candidates.
>>
>> You want more viable parties - so do I - another reason for wanting  
>> voters to be able to do such as Condorcet's ranking and have it be  
>> effective (another dig at IRV for its way of counting).  Note that  
>> I do NOT expect every party to nominate candidates for every race -  
>> that is not worth the effort for some races.
>>> --
>>>
>>> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com