On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My goal is using Condorcet, but recognizing that everything costs money, wo > we need to be careful as to expenses. > > Thus I see: > Condorcet as the election method. > But then see no value in a "condorcet party". > Also then see no value in primaries, but know parties see value in such. > And no value in runoffs - Plurality needs runoffs because of the way > voters cannot express their thoughts - but Condorcet has no similar problem.
Well, the advantage is that it might be a way to effectively get condorcet without the need to first switch away from plurality. > What value might the state see as reason for paying for such? > Don't the states currently part fund the party primaries? > What value might voters see in this? No that much. One advantage is that they don't have to fully switch to a new voting system. They get to see how it works first. > Who does the "just pick" since voters can claim ownership of the right? Would depend on the party, they would need to have rules for doing the selection. > Who justifies paying expense of a primary here? The party gets to claim that it respects the opinion of the voters, and also picking a more popular candidate increases the chance of winning. >> I guess the parties could still put up the 40 and 60 candidates. >> However, I wonder if they would prefer the other party to win rather >> than a compromise candidate. > > Now we are back to "who decides". Each party decides. I meant that even if there was condorcet, the 2 parties would still pick candidates somehow, so there would be 2 major candidate, neither of which would be a condorcet winner based purely on policies. > Part of all this is desire for a fair chance to win. The parties are always going to be able to help their candidate win. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info