> >>> >> dlw: I beg to differ. My approach uses the first stage to reduce the >> number of candidates to 3. In Burlington, those three would have been the >> Dems, Progs and Pubs so the LNH would still be in place in the second >> stage. >> > > JQ:Hmmm.... I could certainly counter that the Dems could theoretically > third-rank a Dem clone or a turkey candidate in order to push the Prog out > of the top three. The turkey is pretty implausible, but I could imagine it > becoming the norm to run two clones, as in early presidential elections > when VP was not a separate election. >
dlw: I'm sure if we used a mix of PR and single-winner elections that 3rd parties would get enuf status to instill rules that would make running clones a losing idea for major parties. > > But anyway, you're right, the problem is not as bad as I'd thought. > > So I guess I'll accept your proposal in the category of systems like IRV - > systems I support as better than plurality but don't actively promote > because there are better options. > So that puts us at >>82 or 84% now??? > > >>> Admirable response. I'd have to agree... but of course, I'd guess that >>> >2/3 of that will be *me* convincing *you*. :) >>> >> > I revise that estimate to >1/2 :) > The bet is on, and if I'm not mistaken, I'm ahead right now... dlw > > Jameson >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
