[EM] a response to Andy J.

[David L Wetzell]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> 2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>> 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 wait a minute. The turkey/clone would not actually have to make it
> into the top three to make the LNH failure a problem. It would only have to
> be a possibility which is plausible to the "Dem" voters (in the Burlington
> example). Given how Australian voting patterns seem to show voters burying
> even with a real LNH guarantee, I still think that your 90% LNH is is not,
> as you claim, equivalent to 100% LNH for practical purposes.
>

I guess I don't quite get your point.
My point is that given the use of American forms of PR, 3rd parties cd
enforce campaign finance transparency laws that would make the use of
clones not feasible.

>
>
>>> 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???
>>
>
> I'll go with >>84%.
>

Yeah, Baby!!!


> I revise that estimate to >1/2 :)
>>>
>>
>> The bet is on, and if I'm not mistaken, I'm ahead right now...
>>
>
> OK. It's a win/win bet (even though you may have to come visit Guatemala
> to collect).
>
Let's be hopeful.
dlw

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111031/e27b9f95/attachment-0004.htm>