On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:08:19 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
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.
I do not see your logic, but anything that gets exposure to true Condorcet
has possibilities.
What value might the state see as reason for paying for such?
Don't the states currently part fund the party primaries?
State funds exist, but question here is justification for spending more.
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.
"just pick" are your words - party rules likely forbid this.
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.
Looking out the window I see Obama and Clinton. In a Condorcet world the
Democrats might find it best to let both run against McCain, etc.
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.
Back to Obama and Clinton.
--
[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
