[EM] a response to Andy J.

[David L Wetzell]

>
>>>
>> dlw: I beg to differ.  My approach uses the first stage to reduce the
>> number of candidates to 3.  In Burlington, those three would have been the
>> Dems, Progs and Pubs so the LNH would still be in place in the second
>> stage.
>>
>
> JQ:Hmmm.... I could certainly counter that the Dems could theoretically
> third-rank a Dem clone or a turkey candidate in order to push the Prog out
> of the top three. The turkey is pretty implausible, but I could imagine it
> becoming the norm to run two clones, as in early presidential elections
> when VP was not a separate election.
>

dlw: I'm sure if we used a mix of PR and single-winner elections that 3rd
parties would get enuf status to instill rules that would make running
clones a losing idea for major parties.

>
> But anyway, you're right, the problem is not as bad as I'd thought.
>


> So I guess I'll accept your proposal in the category of systems like IRV -
> systems I support as better than plurality but don't actively promote
> because there are better options.
>
So that puts us at >>82 or 84% now???

>

>
>>>  Admirable response. I'd have to agree... but of course, I'd guess that
>>> >2/3 of that will be *me* convincing *you*. :)
>>>
>>
> I revise that estimate to >1/2 :)
>

The bet is on, and if I'm not mistaken, I'm ahead right now...
dlw

>
> Jameson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111031/16640f73/attachment-0004.htm>