robert bristow-johnson wrote:
we have a legitimate cliff-hanger here in Vermont with the Democrat
gubernatorial primary.
5 candidates, 4 that were all viable, 3 that are within 1% and the top 2
that are within 0.1%.
i wonder how close this would have been if there was something better
than FPTP.
it was a fascinating experience being a fly on the wall at one of the
campaigns.
now to pull on my Doug Racine T-shirt and go to the "unity rally".
Ideally (that is notwithstanding internal bureaucracy and similar
effects), a party would adopt a ranked voting method if it would benefit
them. If the "outer" ballot is also ranked and picks the median voter's
candidate, then that would happen if the old voting method elects
candidates that are further away from the median voter (of the
electorate in general) than is the case for the new voting method.
However, there are a number of caveats in the real world. First, the
outer method does not have that quality, as it's not Condorcet (nor even
ranked any more). Second, we can't just throw away the "similar effects"
mentioned above, as they may be significant. Third, the primary is not
open and so even if a good ranked method were used, it would elect the
candidate closest to the party's median, not that of the electorate in
general.
As for why the parties don't use a ranked ballot, they may not even know
about it. Still, one may wonder...
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
