Let me get this straight. C gets 40%, but the other candidates get only 30%... but C is the _least_ popular? Offhand, I'd say that C has demonstrated that he or she has the broadest appeal.Consider three candidates, A, B, and C. People prefer A to C 60% to 40%. People prefer B to C 60% to 40%. People prefer A to B 51% to 49%.
But those are all two way races. In a three way race, it could be
that A gets 30% of the vote, B gets 30% of the vote, and C gets 40% of
the vote. So, the addition of a third candidate that splits the A/B
vote in half, means that the candidate that gets elected is the least
popular.
That is the practical problem of adding a third candidate into an
election. That's why there are two political parties, with primaries.
It's not "politics", it's mathematics.
C is obviously the candidate with the _most votes_. That's usually the criteria for winning an election (unless there are requirements of, say, at least 40%, or X number of electoral votes). It's not some ideal of who's the most popular. If you can't get people to vote for you, you'll lose. I see no "practical problem" here.
Of course, one could just as easily present the following case. Let's say we have two political parties, and each can usually expect to get at least 49% of the popular vote: winning that 2% in the middle is their genera task. However, if one party selects a candidate who alienates as much as 2% of its usual 49% constituency, it risks having that crucial 2% decide to stay at home and not vote for their candidate. Thus, under a two-party system, the least-popular candidate can be elected as well. So I'm not impressed by Charles's modelling.
And recall that Charles's model is being presented in regards to an electoral process that involves poor voter turnout (meaning that no candidate can really be said to be the "most popular") and an electoral college wherein a candidate can lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote. So, while I'm sure his model is fairly clear-cut, I can't say it has much bearing on the real world.
And please
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
