I like to look at the Election of 1860. I guess you liked Bell? Bell was the Constitutional Union Party candidate. They won Virginia, Tenn., Kentucky, and maybe Texas.
the CU party believed "Hey, Slavery is tearing the country apart, we are the party of 'Slavery is not an issue'" It was Sam Houston's party. I kinda like Sam. -----Original Message----- From: Bart Ingles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 1:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Approval's effect on candidates The "centrist weasel" may be the better choice, depending on how you define this term. Suppose the population is divided on some polarizing issue -- say abortion. Say 40% are strongly pro choice, and another 40% strongly against. The middle 20% support a candidate who believes abortion should be a legal right (including gov't-paid medical care, where applicable) up to 12 weeks, and completely prohibited thereafter. Finally, the fourth candidate takes no official position, and would prefer not to involve government in the issue. The first problem: Which centrist is the strong leader? Is it the one with a definite policy to implement, or the one who refuses to take a position? I suppose you could take your pick -- maybe my example is lacking. The second problem: I don't see where Approval and Condorcet would differ in this example. My guess is that both would pick the more libertarian of the two centrists, as idealistic voters of both extremes might find the more Solomon-like approach abhorrent. But maybe not -- if voters are pragmatic enough to want to nail down at least some rights for women and the unborn, they might choose Solomon regardless of the voting system. About the only difference I could see is that perhaps Condorcet would be more accurate at differentiating between idealists and pragmatists -- but only if the pivotal voters are somewhat ambivalent between idealism and pragmatism. But then, was the choice made by the more accurate method (idealist vs. pragmatist) the one previously defined as the strong leader, or the weasel? Perhaps someone can find a better example. The only real-life example I know of where Condorcet might have differed from Approval was the 1992 U.S. Presidential election. (Brams? et al) estimated that Ross Perot could not have won the election, due to his high negative ratings among voters. But it does seem possible that he could have won under Condorcet (assuming that voters didn't truncate). I suppose you *could* call him a strong leader, but to me it doesn't seem to make the candidate any more appealing. Bart Ingles ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice.
