James, If the Bush voters put Nader 2nd, I don't think Condorcet has been explained to them very well. I think there's a good chance that Nader was actually the sincere *last* choice of a majority. (My own preference order was Gore>Bush>Nader.)
> Were Condorcet ever to be adopted, I would predict that you would NEVER see the > voting pattern given at IRV3. Once the major parties saw the effect of the > Condorcet system, their supporters would "bullet vote" only for the parties' > candidates. So you would be back to the pattern at IRV1. The "other side" might > win, but at least they wouldn't see their own chance denied almost automatically > in favour of a minor minority candidate. I don't think American voters are so polarized that they would go "all or nothing" for one platform. Keep in mind that if Condorcet were in place, more appealing compromise candidates would enter the race than Nader. He's not really a "compromise candidate" at all. As an example, McCain could've run alongside Bush without harming either's chances, and he might've won. I've met a number of people (myself included) whose preference order was McCain>Gore>Bush. (McCain and Bush are both Republicans, if that's unclear.) You're right that a Nader victory would be unacceptable to most. Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
