[EM] why can't we have the Ranked Ballot (even IRV) for primaries?

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> 
> we have a legitimate cliff-hanger here in Vermont with the Democrat 
> gubernatorial primary.
> 
> 5 candidates, 4 that were all viable, 3 that are within 1% and the top 2 
> that are within 0.1%.
> 
> i wonder how close this would have been if there was something better 
> than FPTP.
> 
> it was a fascinating experience being a fly on the wall at one of the 
> campaigns.
> 
> now to pull on my Doug Racine T-shirt and go to the "unity rally".

Ideally (that is notwithstanding internal bureaucracy and similar 
effects), a party would adopt a ranked voting method if it would benefit 
them. If the "outer" ballot is also ranked and picks the median voter's 
candidate, then that would happen if the old voting method elects 
candidates that are further away from the median voter (of the 
electorate in general) than is the case for the new voting method.

However, there are a number of caveats in the real world. First, the 
outer method does not have that quality, as it's not Condorcet (nor even 
ranked any more). Second, we can't just throw away the "similar effects" 
mentioned above, as they may be significant. Third, the primary is not 
open and so even if a good ranked method were used, it would elect the 
candidate closest to the party's median, not that of the electorate in 
general.

As for why the parties don't use a ranked ballot, they may not even know 
about it. Still, one may wonder...