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

[Dave Ketchum]

On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:23 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> 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.

Sorry - you said that and I did not follow carefully - matters little  
for the current topic.
>
>
>> 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.

I suspect that many are simply echoing the label they have heard for  
Ranked Choice.

Let IRV keep what it demonstrated in Burlington - but avoid Condorcet  
getting scarred by that.
>
>> 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.
>
The advanced registration makes sense to protect against invasion with  
intent to destroy.

Plurality can suffer from a party's clones or near clones getting to  
the general election - and nomination by petition can easily stumble  
into this.  This is not so big a problem with Condorcet but agreed  
there are other reasons for primaries.
> --
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com