[lbo-talk] Nader would have won in 2000 using Proportional Representation

[Bill Bartlett]

The Condorcet system is not a version of proportional representation, 
but a (primitive and ill-conceived) method of electing officials in 
single seat elections. Since it is a system designed to ensure the 
election of a compromise candidate, it is hardly surprising it would 
have the result you claim. But it isn't PR.

Proportional representation is, as the name clearly conveys to any 
sentient creature with a basic grasp of the English language, a 
system for electing representatives in multi-member electorates.

Obviously any system which is designed to enable the candidate 
preferred by the least number of voters to be elected is idiotic. So 
what do you think that proves? It hasn't got anything to do with 
proportional representation. So your Subject line is entirely 
misleading. I'm not too sure whether this is due to you being very 
very stupid, or very very dishonest.

Which is it? Are you a moron or are you a liar? Or both?

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas

At 6:49 AM -0500 27/3/04, mitchelcohen at mindspring.com wrote:


>A short while back, some folks challenged my assertion that under 
>the Condorcet version of Proportional Representation Ralph Nader 
>would have won the Presidential election. Well, here is the 
>reference, read it yourself.
>Mitchel Cohen
>
>Barry Burden's analysis of the 2000 National Election Survey with 
>discussion of the Condorcet vote is posted at 
>http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/burdosu.pdf
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk