2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> 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 wait a minute. The turkey/clone would not actually have to make it >> into the top three to make the LNH failure a problem. It would only have to >> be a possibility which is plausible to the "Dem" voters (in the Burlington >> example). Given how Australian voting patterns seem to show voters burying >> even with a real LNH guarantee, I still think that your 90% LNH is is not, >> as you claim, equivalent to 100% LNH for practical purposes. >> > > I guess I don't quite get your point. > My point is that given the use of American forms of PR, 3rd parties cd > enforce campaign finance transparency laws that would make the use of > clones not feasible. >
In the Burlington case, imagine you're a Dem voter. You think: "If I can keep the Prog from being in the top 3, the Dem wins. So I'll vote for the [Dem clone/ UFO party candidate] in 3rd place instead of the Prog." My point is that this attempted strategy doesn't actually have to successfully put the UFO candidate above the Prog for it to be a problem. Even just attempting it brings a risk that the Republican will win - a risk that could be self-reinforcing as both Dems and Progs attempted such a strategy, perhaps even using the same UFO candidate as a proxy. (And the Republican voters could safely encourage this chaos by also bottom-ranking the UFO candidate). If you're about to argue that Dem voters wouldn't do that and risk electing a Republican... remember that that same argument would refute any importance at all for the LNH criterion. It may be correct that LNH doesn't matter - but that's not how FairVote thinks.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
