On 7.7.2012, at 21.04, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>> But your concern probably is that a party could deviously ask a candidate
>> that they like, and who is, for all intents and purposes, a party candidate
>> of theirs, to run as an independent, with no official party designation, and
>> no mention of a party connection, by hir or the party.
>
> Yes, that's my concern. Except that I expect most party P voters to know very
> well that this candidate that pretends to be independent actually is set by
> party P. Most voters of this candidate would thus be supporters of party P.
> (And those voters would vote for party P in the national vote.)
>
> I answered that concern. It's a concern that could be raised in regard to any
> topping-up ("additional-member") system. And it's a concern that is easily
> answered, as I answered it.
>
> Every party P voter who nationally votes for the party independent doesn't
> vote for P. If non-P voters vote for the party independent, it's because s/he
> has appeal apart from P-ness.S/he deserves those votes therefore. So what's
> the problem?
In the strategic scenario the idea was not that the voters vould "nationally
vote for the party independent". Their national vote would be given to party P.
Only the local vote would be for the "party independent" candidate (that is
mentally a party P supporter, although has been listed formally as an
independent candidate). Would't this lead to a working strategy as I described
it?
Juho
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
