Richard Winger wrote: > [...] plurality winners aren't > always so terrible. Some presidents who have been > elected with only a plurality of the US popular votes > were among our best presidents, while some who were > elected with huge majorities were among our worst.
It's not clear to me that performance in office is an argument for (or against) any election method. The question for us is not whether the voters generally guess right (according to somebody's notion of guessing right). Our question is whether the methods used to aggregate everyone's individual guesses into a collective decision do so fairly (according to somebody's notion of fairness). In place of "fairly" you may substitute your own adverb. Plurality fails according to many common notions of fairness--and other adverbs--even when the candidates it picks perform well in office (according to somebody's notion of good performance). My two cents, Bob Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:46 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: election-methods-electorama.com@electorama.com > Subject: [EM] plurality isn't so bad > > > I know it contradicts a core assumption of many > members of this group, but plurality winners aren't > always so terrible. Some presidents who have been > elected with only a plurality of the US popular votes > were among our best presidents, while some who were > elected with huge majorities were among our worst. > > The plurality popular vote winners include Polk > (instrumental for getting Texas into the U.S., a mixed > blessing?), Taylor (who helped California be admitted > into the union, a clear blessing), Lincoln the first > time, Garfield, Cleveland both times, Wilson both > times, Truman, Kennedy, Nixon the first time (he did > his best work in his first term...going to China, > Family Assistance Plan), and Clinton both times. > > Getting elected with majorities were Pierce (who > disastrously signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854), > Grant both times, Harding, Coolidge, Nixon the 2nd > time. > > Of course, this should not be confused with the > miserable presidential elections in which someone who > didn't even get a plurality still took the office > (J.Q. Adams, Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. > Bush the first time). > > Jesse Ventura, Lowell Weicker, and Walter Hickel, the > only three governors elected in minor party tickets in > the last fifty years, all won with pluralities. I > doubt they could have won if there had been a > majority-vote requirement. The last third party > victory in a US House race (New York in 1948, Vito > Marcantonio), ahd the last third party victory in a US > Senate race (New York 1970, James Buckley) were also > instances of plurality winners. > > --- Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --------------------------------- > > Plurality should be more recognized as a loser - too > easy to get two > candidates on side X of an issue and one on side Y. > Assuming > popularity of X and Y is any place near a tie, the X > candidates will > share the X votes, and the Y candidate will win due to > no sharing, > rather than needing to be more popular than side X. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > ---- > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
