My spin on it is that for Condorcet to be used in the national presidential election, that would require a constitutional amendment, whereas the NPVIC does not. We must have all states using the ranked-ballot in order for *any* state to use the ranked ballot. Otherwise we don't have a way to reconcile and commensurately add the votes from one state to the others. If we have national RCV, it *must* be Condorcet, so we can add the tallies from the different states together and not have to ship the ballots or ballot data for 170 million ballots to Washington DC.
The problem with Condorcet voting is the tacit assumption that voters actually HAVE ordered preferences past their first choice. Is this really a valid assumption? I think not.
It's better to just have a runoff if nobody gets an absolute majority, because that way people can actually form those preferences between the 1st and 2nd candidates, once the third has been eliminated.
A second question, of course, is, what is your basis for thinking Trump "hard-right"?
I'll grant you that the view from academia probably is that Trump is hard right. But academia is so far from the center of the general population's politics that you can scarcely even see it from where you are.
Say, I was wondering, you recommend a Top-3 Condorcet system (very nice), but how should nomination work? Do you think it should be by party, or perhaps an open primary? I think that neither open nor party primary can function with Choose-One Plurality voting, given the rampant vote-splitting that inevitably occurs. Ranking methods would likely be too arduous for voters in an open system, due to the number of candidates. It seems a cardinal system might be optimal, like Score or Approval, unless we stick to party primaries which would need to be required to use Condorcet voting.
My spin on it is that for Condorcet to be used in the national presidential election, that would require a constitutional amendment, whereas the NPVIC does not. We must have all states using the ranked-ballot in order for *any* state to use the ranked ballot. Otherwise we don't have a way to reconcile and commensurately add the votes from one state to the others. If we have national RCV, it *must* be Condorcet, so we can add the tallies from the different states together and not have to ship the ballots or ballot data for 170 million ballots to Washington DC.
The problem with Condorcet voting is the tacit assumption that voters actually HAVE ordered preferences past their first choice. Is this really a valid assumption? I think not.
It's better to just have a runoff if nobody gets an absolute majority, because that way people can actually form those preferences between the 1st and 2nd candidates, once the third has been eliminated.
A second question, of course, is, what is your basis for thinking Trump "hard-right"?
I'll grant you that the view from academia probably is that Trump is hard right. But academia is so far from the center of the general population's politics that you can scarcely even see it from where you are.
Say, I was wondering, you recommend a Top-3 Condorcet system (very nice), but how should nomination work? Do you think it should be by party, or perhaps an open primary? I think that neither open nor party primary can function with Choose-One Plurality voting, given the rampant vote-splitting that inevitably occurs. Ranking methods would likely be too arduous for voters in an open system, due to the number of candidates. It seems a cardinal system might be optimal, like Score or Approval, unless we stick to party primaries which would need to be required to use Condorcet voting.
Also, what are your thoughts on STAR voting?