On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Asset deserves a bit of study - the candidate you vote for can be
part of deciding who gets elected ...
that sorta smacks of smoke-filled room to me. a general election
should be decided purely by the electorate according to rules set
forth in advance. i guess it should be possible for some candidate,
who's winning, to concede and let the next candidate in line (however
the election method sorts candidates) to win office. i dunno why that
would happen unless there was a sudden scandal after the election,
before taking office.
except, if that candidate runs with another as a team (like the
American presidential election), then the other person on the team
(the veep) should take office.
but i really don't like the idea of even the guy i voted for,
negotiating, using assets that i have given him or her, the
installation of the candidate i might like the least. this happens in
legislative bodies to determine the leadership in that body (like the
Speaker of the House), but this should not happen for a general
election in a democracy.
Condorcet looks much like IRV to the voters.
we can be grateful to FairVote for that. maybe that's unfair.
my fear is that Condorcet, if ever marketed to some town or state
government, the opponents will just label it "IRV". sorta like
"McSame" in the last prez election.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
