Comments on: Kinky elections http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/kinky-elections/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:59:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Dan http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/kinky-elections/#comment-1379 Dan Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:53:03 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=699#comment-1379 The real elections where this would seem to matter is elections like <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_8th_congressional_district_election%2C_2006" REL="nofollow">Arizona, District 8</a> , where the Democrats helped elect an extremist Republican who will now lose to the Democrat. IRV could possible help in districts like this, though it could also possibly fail, if the non-extremist was eliminated first. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a>Dan The real elections where this would seem to matter is elections like Arizona, District 8 , where the Democrats helped elect an extremist Republican who will now lose to the Democrat. IRV could possible help in districts like this, though it could also possibly fail, if the non-extremist was eliminated first. 

Posted by Dan

]]> By: Dan http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/kinky-elections/#comment-1378 Dan Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:14:21 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=699#comment-1378 I don't know what the limit on candidates is before you get information overload, but I have a feeling it's more than 2. Already, the polls and elite (media, money-givers, etc.) rule candidates out as unelectable (take the Libertarian candidate in TX-Gov or virtually anywhere for that matter) and their presence on the ballot doesn't detract from the rest of the candidates. You might not have a series of 1-on-1 debates, but then again, most debates these days suck and it might be that the debates would benefit by having candidates with a wider range of ideas. Multi-party democracies in Europe sometimes have debates between heads of leading parties.<br/><br/>The primaries could still be there, but instead of being mostly for a nomination, they'd be mostly for legitimacy and resources, much like the Sierra Club endorsement, only more democratic. <br/><br/>CT-Sen and TX-Gov both have shades of that this year, where candidates (Lieberman, Strayhorn) decided they could do better in the generals than they did or would have in the primaries. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a>Dan I don’t know what the limit on candidates is before you get information overload, but I have a feeling it’s more than 2. Already, the polls and elite (media, money-givers, etc.) rule candidates out as unelectable (take the Libertarian candidate in TX-Gov or virtually anywhere for that matter) and their presence on the ballot doesn’t detract from the rest of the candidates. You might not have a series of 1-on-1 debates, but then again, most debates these days suck and it might be that the debates would benefit by having candidates with a wider range of ideas. Multi-party democracies in Europe sometimes have debates between heads of leading parties.

The primaries could still be there, but instead of being mostly for a nomination, they’d be mostly for legitimacy and resources, much like the Sierra Club endorsement, only more democratic.

CT-Sen and TX-Gov both have shades of that this year, where candidates (Lieberman, Strayhorn) decided they could do better in the generals than they did or would have in the primaries. 

Posted by Dan

]]> By: saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/kinky-elections/#comment-1377 saurabh Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:09:35 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=699#comment-1377 Is there some metric for available information about a candidate? I.e., if there are enough people in a field, it becomes difficult to know who is interesting and why, and to conduct meaningful debates. (LD-style debates are right out.) This is one appeal behind a primary process, which means McCain must always lose to Bush. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> Is there some metric for available information about a candidate? I.e., if there are enough people in a field, it becomes difficult to know who is interesting and why, and to conduct meaningful debates. (LD-style debates are right out.) This is one appeal behind a primary process, which means McCain must always lose to Bush. 

Posted by saurabh

]]>