Folks,
If you have some extra time, please read the following exchange and let me know if you understand what Mike is trying to say. Thanks.
--Russ
MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
I�d said:
So the voter using that strategy votes for a candidate if that candidate is so good that s/he would rather have that candidate in office than hold the election.
Russ replied:
You never answered my question about what it would mean to not "hold the election."
I reply:
That�s correct. I didn�t reply because the answer is so obvious.
Russ continues:
Does that mean the incumbent stays in office, or does it mean that the government ends and anarchy begins?
I reply:
What did I say? :-)
Let me walk you through this, Russ:
So the voter using that strategy votes for a candidate if that candidate is so good that s/he would rather have that candidate in office than hold the election.
I didn�t say that the voter would rather have the incumbant in office, or no one at all in office. What did I say? I said if the voter would rather have that candidate in office than hold the election. Not the incumbant, not no one in office, but that candidate in office.
Nor did I say that the voter has the power to put that candidate into office instead of holding the election. I merely said if that voter would rather have that candidate in office than hold the election.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
