-------- Original Message -------- From: Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: EM List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [EM] Argument for Approval Primaries Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:49:40 -0800
It occurs to me that one place where ranked ballot methods are entirely unsuitable is in party primary elections. Here neither the CW nor the SU maximizer are necessarily winnable choices, which seems to moot those criteria. A similar statement applies to any determinate system.
... -------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagreed! If a method is "good enough" to select a single winner in the general election, then it must be good enough, and most logical choice, for use in related primaries. While the details are a bit different in primaries, the basic issue is to select the best candidate as seen by the voters.
I would make one exception. If the general election is stuck with an outdated method, and a party is willing and able to move ahead - let it. This could encourage updating the general election method.
But, there is a BIG related topic. One feature of Plurality general elections is that a party with multiple candidates likely loses to a party with a single candidate. Primaries are a method for each party to select its single, hopefully best, candidate.
With Condorcet, or the better other methods discussed for the general election, parties could be permitted two, or even more, candidates in the general election - needing a primary only for an excessively large set of candidates.
Puzzle: Assuming the above leads to Condorcet in the primary, to select two candidates for the general election - WHY NOT? the arguments are not necessarily the same as related to electing two officers for PR.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
