<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Juho--<BR>
<BR>
Of course there won't be many polling locations Right now, I know of only one--my own local poll, which<BR>
might turn out to be the only one. In that case, I'll have no choice but to infer about the entire country<BR>
from a poll in my own town.<BR>
<BR>
With luck there might be a few (three or four?) other people on EM who are willing to conduct polls in their<BR>
cities around the country. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not counting on it. If mine is the only poll, then that's just<BR>
how it is.<BR>
<BR>
About the count method, the important thing is to just try to find a CW. If there is, instead, a circular tie, then<BR>
maybe examination of the rankings will reveal offensive order-reversal, and allow inference about a CW.<BR>
<BR>
If there's a natural circular tie, then I'll look at first choices in the rankings, and, using an estimate of relative<BR>
positions in the left-right spectrum, I'll find the candidate such that equal numbers of 1st choice ballots have<BR>
been cast for candidates to his/her left and right. That candidate will stand in for the CW.<BR>
<BR>
The purpose is to inform strategic voting in Plurality. Will the CW be a Democrat or Republican? Maybe not.<BR>
<BR>
Look at all the Internet polls in which Nader consistently won. <BR>
<BR>
Selection bias? Don't people with more money<BR>
have more computers? Aren't people with more money more conservative?<BR>
<BR>
Ballot-stuffing:<BR>
<BR>
Arguably, more honest people prefer more honest candidates. More cynical people who vote for more cynical candidates<BR>
would arguably be more likely to ballot-stuff.<BR>
<BR>
I suggest that Nader's consistent wins are likely to represent genuine winnability for a candidate with Nader's <BR>
policy positions<BR> </div></body>
</html>