<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>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. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>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.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>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.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I guess I don't quite get your point. </div><div>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. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In the Burlington case, imagine you're a Dem voter. You think: "If I can keep the Prog from being in the top 3, the Dem wins. So I'll vote for the [Dem clone/ UFO party candidate] in 3rd place instead of the Prog." My point is that this attempted strategy doesn't actually have to successfully put the UFO candidate above the Prog for it to be a problem. Even just attempting it brings a risk that the Republican will win - a risk that could be self-reinforcing as both Dems and Progs attempted such a strategy, perhaps even using the same UFO candidate as a proxy. (And the Republican voters could safely encourage this chaos by also bottom-ranking the UFO candidate).</div>
<div><br></div><div>If you're about to argue that Dem voters wouldn't do that and risk electing a Republican... remember that that same argument would refute any importance at all for the LNH criterion. It may be correct that LNH doesn't matter - but that's not how FairVote thinks.</div>
</div>