On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Terry Bouricius wrote:
Nearly every political scientist would say that
Wright and Kiss were the "two strongest candidates."
before or after the election?
before the election, i'm not sure that was true. they might have
said that Kiss and Montroll were the "two strongest candidates"
*after* the election, the political scientists/observers are
reverberating the official election results determined by rules which
are presently under debate.
Most political observers would agree that the term the "two
strongest candidates" does not include the third place plurality
candidate,
only because the election rules in effect do not put the 3rd place
candidate (according to the rules) in the top two. if the election
rules were changed, then what would the political scientists or
observers say?
Under election rules used in any government election in the world,
whether a plurality election or a traditional runoff election,
Montroll would lose as the third place candidate.
and i've pointed that out a few times. and Montroll would not have
been in the runoff. and, it's possible that with reduced turnout,
that the "biggest loser" (from the Condorcet POV) would have won
subsequently pissing off 66% of the town.
The fact that IRV introduced ranked ballots allows us to see
that his broader second-choice appeal made him the Condorcet-
winner, but
it is at least debatable as to whether the term "strongest" is the
appropriate term to be applied to a candidate who could be in last
place
in a plurality situation.
yes, it's debatable and, since there are 3 different methods all
lifting up different declared winners, it's subjective.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
