[EM] Weak Condorcet winners

[Warren Smith]

>> WDS:
>> At the present time, Jon Huntsman gets only a tiny
>> fraction of the USA-republican-presidential-nomination votes,
>> according to polls...  it's at least somewhat plausible) that
>> Huntsman is "everybody's second choice" and therefore is the
>> Condorcet candidate who would defeat every Republican rival
>> one on one.
>>    So there's a possible very important example of a "weak
>> Condorcet winner" in your face right now.

> James Gilmour:
> Your point is obscure.  My point is not that a "weak Condorcet winner" might exist or be elected, but about the political and
> Political consequences of such a result.  The electors may vote that way, but once they and the party politicians see what has
> happened all hell will break loose.  And it will be stirred up by a very hostile media.  At least, that's what I would confidently
> predict would happen here in the UK.  The "weak Condorcet winner", while being the Condorcet winner, would be totally ineffective in
> the discharge of the office to which s/he was elected.

--well, my point is, we do not necessarily have to argue about this
in the abstract; we may be able to make things more concrete by
finding actual historical examples.

In particular, Jon Huntsman, if he really is a Condorcet winner who cannot
be elected, could be considered via "alternate history,"
and compared with, say, Barack Obama, who definitely was a convincing
Condorcet (and range, and approval, and plurality) winner and was
elected.  Later polls indicate the USA seems unhappy it elected Obama
(about 40% approval rating at present) though
that's not as unhappy as, say, it felt about Bush II at the end of his terms
or it currently feels about the US congress.

Which one of {JH, BO} is more "totally ineffective" as a US president?

In France 2007, Bayrou was a not-elected Condorcet (and range and
approval voting) winner, see
   http://www.rangevoting.org/French2007studies.html ,
while Sarkozy got elected despite being pairwise defeated by Bayrou.
Later, polls of the French public and midterm elections both
suggested France regretted electing Sarkozy.

Which one of these is more "totally ineffective" as President of France?

In Nicaragua 2006, Ortega was elected despite a decent probability he
actually was the Condorcet loser (!).   How "effective" was he
as president?

In 1972, the data indicated H.Humphrey was the Condorcet winner in the
quest for the Dem-party presidential nomination.  But G.McGovern
actually won the nomination.   Which was then the more "effective"
nominee?
Well...  McGovern lost to Nixon by one of the biggest landslides in history.
 How would Humphrey would have done in comparison?

Maybe you can think of some more (but also prominent) examples.

It is just my opinion, but I think these 4 examples do not support
Gilmour's theory.   Specifically, I doubt Huntsman would be way less
effective than Obama, or that Bayrou would have been way less
effective than Sarkozy, and I doubt  McGovern was more effective than
Humphrey would have been.

So, sorry, I think Gilmour's theory is either wrong, or if it is true,
it is not tremendously true.   Political facts often do not obey
intuitive guesses.