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

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:

> This started with a description of a primary problem - 5 strong Dem  
> candidates for gov. in VT.

5 candidates, but only 4 were "strong".  one was always an underdog  
and proved to be pretty weak when the vote came in.

>  Primaries are a party task, but this one sounds as if it may  
> include clones, or at least near-clones. Just as primaries were  
> invented to do such as attend to clones within a party, perhaps  
> something new could be invented to help this primary.
>
> So Ranked Choice makes sense here and I would argue, as usual, that  
> it should be Condorcet rather than IRV.

still agree that Condorcet is better than IRV, but IRV is better than  
FPTP.  within the Racine camp (which is where i was a volunteer and  
able to directly observe what was going on on primary night) there  
were some pining for IRV believing that our candidate would have  
prevailed if IRV was operative instead of FPTP.

> For another day I would promote Condorcet for the general election,  
> noting that that reduces the value of even having primaries.

i think that, especially for a single-seat office, that parties will  
want to proffer one candidate that is "our guy".  then primaries or  
caucuses or something is needed within the primary to decide who their  
guy is.  and in the U.S., the state governments enacted laws regarding  
that to keep parties honest within themselves.  they didn't want major  
parties to select their candidates solely within smoke-filled rooms.   
so most states imposed primaries upon the parties and some imposed  
advanced registration to a party to be eligible to vote in such primary.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."