On Dec 27, 2007, at 22:39 , Don&Cathy Hoffard wrote:
In this example I will uses the 2008 US Presidential Election only
to illustrate a point - you could assume a state Governor or
Senators race
We currently have about 25 candidates running for President of the
United States.
9 Democrats
9 Republicans
3 (assumed) Green
2 (assumed) Libertarian
2 (assumed Constitution
Bases on the current election laws we will have 5 candidates in the
General Election.
1 Democrat
1 Republican
1 Green
1 Libertarian
1 Constitution
Voters will be asked the vote for one of these candidates.
Why do we have to choose among the following preferences (using
head-to-head match ups – i.e. Condorcet) among the 25 candidates
running?
4 most preferred (Democrat Party/Clinton-Plurality winner)
5 most preferred (Republican Party/Giuliani-Plurality winner)
15-19 most preferred (Green Party - assume Nader)
21 most preferred (Libertarian Party -unknown)
23 most preferred (Constitution Party -unknown)
If we have to have 5 candidate in the general election why not have
the TOP 5 (based on the Condorcet method)
Is the plan is to first arrange a Condorcet election between all
candidates and then between the top 5 candidates? In that case if the
voters have not changed opinion between the two elections (and the
voters vote sincerely) then the results of the second round should
usually be a copy of the results at the first round. In that sense
the results of the first round could be considered also final. But if
the law requires to arrange an election between 5, why not then.
Too many candidates in an election may be a problem since that makes
voting tedious. One option would be to allow large parties to have
e.g. 2 candidates each and small parties to have only one candidate.
In this case also republicans would have a say on which one of the
democrats will win (assuming that democrats will have majority). I'm
not sure if democrats want that or if they prefer to first elect the
"best democrat" among the democrats and name only that candidate in
the final election. Having several candidates in the final election
may make the probability of electing some of them higher.
My point is just that running primaries and the number of candidates
each party wants to nominate and the maximum number of candidates in
the final election do have impact on how the system works.
Condorcet should work ok in all phases (I don't expect strategic
votes to be a major problem).
Juho Laatu
They would be the following (assuming the Primary Election matches
the Dec. Polls):
Edwards (would beat all Republicans and Democrats based on
Condorcet rankings see below)
(tie) McCain
(tie) Obama
Clinton
Giuliani
We could then chose the winner (and next president) using the
Condorcet method (or use range, approval, or IRV methods)
If the General Election voting matched to polls then Edwards would
be elected President
I’m not necessarily voting for him, this is only the Voters
Preferred President.
Thanks
Don Hoffard
Poll results:
Margins of Victory (based on Dec. Polls)
Vs.
Giuliani
Romney
Huckabee
McCain
Thompson
Average
Clinton
6
11
10
-2
13
7.6
Obama
7
13
15
0
12
9.4
Edwards
9
22
25
8
14
15.6
Average
7.3
15.3
16.7
2.0
13.0
10.9
Condorcet ranking (assumed based on margins and averages)
1 Edwards
2 tie Obama
2 tie McCain
4 Clinton
5 Giuliani
6 Thompson
7 Romney
8 Huckabee
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
