<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Dave Ketchum Said<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>>Best to leave US
Presidential out of this debate because of its peculiarities. Time enough
to go there once the basic topic is resolved for general use.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>>Also matters that
Plurality is the major election method in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Plurality DESPERATELY needs
Primaries to try to avoid parties having multiple candidates to divvy up the
vote of party backers.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>>This discussion is based
on Condorcet, which has no difficulty with a party having multiple candidates,
and backers, should they choose, to vote for more than one such.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Reply:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>In my example I lumped all of the candidates in one primary
election. This is called a “Blanket Primary” which the US
Supreme Court has rule as unconstitutional (freedom of association principle).
I was just trying to making a point.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>The Party’s rights to “Their candidate” (s)
is a 1<sup>st</sup> amendment right. The reason parties were formed was
to avoid the “spoiler” problem inherent with plurality
voting. If a party had 2 candidates and another had only one the
other party would always win (under plurality voting). But if we change
the rules to Condorcet in the General election there would be no need to limit
their candidates to just one.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>We could also have a Party primary that would have a Condorcet
winner. If we are just talking about a general election IRV would work in
90% of the cases. Why? It is that in most cases the election is between
two major candidates and some minor party candidates, who in most cases have
little or no chance of winning. However, when you have 9 very similar
candidates in a Party primary elections (Democratic primary or the Republican
primary) you need a very different type of processes (like Condorcet/Range).
My point is that Plurality does not would work in the Democratic or Republican primaries.
Although there are no “head-to-head” polls for those primaries we
can guess the results. <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Clinton</st1:place></st1:City>
may be the Plurality winner but Edwards may be the Condorcet winner (Best
candidate) in the Democratic Primary and McCain may be the Condorcet winner in Republican
primary. Which was kind of my point.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Let us assume that a State passes a law that the “winner”
(Pledged delegates) would be the winner of the states Condorcet Party primary. For
example we have 9 candidates in the New Hampshire Primary and the Sate of New Hampshire
decides to uses the Condorcet method to determine how the State will cast its vote
in the Party convention.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>