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

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:

> 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.


I think that organizations and associations, be they commercial,  
political, religious, whatever, want to maintain an image of constancy  
or consistency.  it's partly for image; they want to look like they  
know what they are doing.  say, in 2008, i don't think it would do the  
Republican party much good to say "We have two very competent  
candidates for the office of President; John McCain and Mitt Romney.   
Both are highly qualified and we invite you to support either one or  
both."  people who share the values of the GOP want to know who the  
GOP really wants to put in office and get behind that candidate (in  
this manner, i sorta agree with that anti-IRV prof from UVM).  now, a  
good election system should allow Mitt Romney, *if* he chooses to and  
can get the support *outside* of the party, to run as an independent  
or as the nominated candidate from another party (presumedly not the  
*other* of the two major parties).  this happens sometimes in NY state  
with the Conservative Party.  and in a sense, this is what Ron Paul  
was about.  it's what Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912.

nonetheless, political parties are sorta private organizations (but  
there are public laws governing their internal workings, too) that  
need to decide for themselves who they endorse and put forth for  
public office and the procedures for doing so.  in the U.S., these  
parties and the state legislatures have decided on procedures and  
dates, most have primaries (usually with the same date for both major  
parties, but there are exceptions), some have caucuses, some have  
something else.  nonetheless, these parties are going to decide  
themselves who their guy is and will represent to the world that this  
guy (and not someone else) is the best person possible for the  
office.  that reality (or depiction of reality) is the necessity for  
primaries or other nominating procedure within the parties.

in my opinion, the need for a multi-candidate election system that  
does not punish voters for voting outside the dominant two parties, is  
to enable viability to credible independent and third-party  
candidates, not to replace primaries or whatever parties do to  
nominate their candidates for office.  if the system is good (that is  
no groups of voters are punished for expressing their sincere primary  
choice by aiding the election of their last choice) which leaves out  
IRV or Plurality, and if it established for long enough, my  
expectation is that eventually third and maybe fourth parties will  
become significant; that occasionally they will get people elected to  
office, and voters may have a choice other than that of Dumb and  
Dumber.  but if voters are punished for voting for someone other than  
Dumb or Dumber by causing the election of Dumber, they will protect  
their contingent political interest, forsake their primary choice, and  
vote for Dumb.

avoiding that is the main motivation for Preferential Voting and it  
was clear how IRV failed that in Burlington in 2009 because it was 429  
Republican "Prog-hater" voters that actually caused the election of  
the Prog candidate, simply by marking their GOP candidate as their  
first choice.  they were punished for voting their first choice and  
would have to consider joining the "two-party system" (the two parties  
being the Democrats and Progressives) in the next election as a  
strategic concern.

sorry, i've drawn this out too much.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."