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

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at dodo.com.au
Sat Mar 27 16:30:05 PST 2004


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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list