Dave Ketchum wrote:
If a method is "good enough" to select a single winner in the general election, then it must be good enough, and most logical choice, for use in related primaries.
It does not follow. An general election is a method the government uses to try to find a candidate who best represents the voters. A primary election is a method a party uses to pick its candidate for a general election -- NOT simply to find the candidate who best represents the party's voters. These two goals can be the same, but it does not logically follow.
Perhaps I live in an odd state, but New York's Board of Elections DOES our elections.
Still, considering imbalances, many primaries are either:
Effectively final, for the primary winner WILL win the general, or
Meaningless, for the primary winner WILL NOT win the general.Anyway, big deal is that it is good for the voters to understand the method used, and that is more practical if both elections use the same method.
While the details are a bit different in primaries, the basic issue is to select the best candidate as seen by the voters.
A party could end up shooting itself in the foot in the general election if it puts forth a candidate who can't win there, when another candidate can. There's no reason (and, indeed, no legal right) to prevent a party from choosing an election method that reflects this.
I would make one exception. If the general election is stuck with an outdated method, and a party is willing and able to move ahead - let it. This could encourage updating the general election method.
As I implied above, I don't think that the government has a right to tell parties how to run their primaries. They could provide very strong incentives (free air time, use of public polling equipment, et cetera) but fundamentally these are private organizations. If a party wants to decide its candidate by plurality or IRV or salic primogeniture (first born son of the previous nominee) then they should be free to do so.
I do not see where I gave you an excuse for this paragraph.
But, there is a BIG related topic. One feature of Plurality general elections is that a party with multiple candidates likely loses to a party with a single candidate. Primaries are a method for each party to select its single, hopefully best, candidate.
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.
Absolutely, I agree with this. The only reason for a party to narrow itself to one candidate in Condorcet is a desire to concentrate its PR machine behind one candidate, and reduce infighting. Broadly speaking, as a voter, I'd much rather have every major party put forth at least three candidates in the general election.
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.
Not necessarily, sure, but I don't think that Condorcet is clearly the best method to elect two candidates. It seems likely that it would end up picking two candidates from the center of a party, and nobody from a wing (think Kerry and Edwards, in stead of Kerry and Dean). But there have been some stabs taken at Condorcet-flavored proportional representation. The best attempt is probably this one:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/10308
It's pretty complicated, but worth the read. Try to sell that to the public, though...
As I said above, we are not doing PR, so almost certainly would not find such complication worth the pain.
-Adam
-- [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
