--- Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
With Condorcet, or the better other methods discussed for the general election, parties could be permitted two, or even more, candidates in the general election - needing a primary only for an excessively large set of candidates.
Puzzle: Assuming the above leads to Condorcet in the primary, to select two candidates for the general election - WHY NOT? the arguments are not necessarily the same as related to electing two officers for PR.
I suspect parties would retain primaries even under Condorcet or Approval, 1) in order to concentrate resources on a single candidate, and 2) out of distrust that their supporters would support all of the party's nominees.
With Plurality general elections, parties have a DESPERATE NEED to do what you describe - and DO NOT always succeed.
With Condorcet for general elections, parties have less need to back a single candidate - for example, given two factions within the party (it CAN happen), it may be less painful to let them battle it out in the general election.
An aside - primaries can get EXPENSIVE - try New York State Independence party (IPNY) primary for governor in 2002:
Governor Pataki wants a third term. He will be on the Republican line, but the IPNY line would give some insurance since NY's fusion law lets the votes be added together. IPNY leadership is agreeable (as I got assured MANY times that spring).
Tom Golisano, IPNY member and SUCCESSFUL businessman, not enthused about above invasion.
So party leadership met and approved Pataki.
=====>OOPS - that tale about "agreeable" was false, and Golisano also got approved.
Pataki cannot face losing, so must win a primary he never planned to be in.
Golisano cannot tolerate losing to the invader.
Later, I am told $43,000,000 worth of primary later, Golisano is candidate, but Pataki wins general election.
I think this because even IRV can handle clones. Yet despite that the Australians
have to rank all of the candidates, I'm under the impression that major parties in Australia don't nominate multiple candidates. So I think the problem is
not with the method, but with money, and voters' unpredictable response to
multiple nominees.
Perhaps it's not such a bad thing if parties deign to retain primaries, and only
nominate lone candidates. That should allow independent candidates to gain some attention for themselves, and not get drowned out by a mass of major party candidates.
But I would be happier, I think, to replace primaries with a single-winner method based on party lists. That should permit more voters to participate in selecting a nominee.
I do not understand how party lists might fit in.
My major point is that with ranked ballots in the general election, it makes sense to do new thinking about primaries.
Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
