Are hypotheses necessarily irrelevant by virtue of being what they are, i.e. hypothetical rather than actual? If all Anybody But Bush/Nader ideologues subscribed to such a position, discussion would certainly come to a quick and pleasant end. After all, if hypotheses were irrelevant, exit-poll questions such as for whom Nader voters (as well as other minor party voters on the left and right) would have voted (and what proportion of them would have abstained) in a two-way race between Bush and Gore would be irrelevant as well.
>Besides which of course, in the case in point Nader would not have
>had the slightest chance of prevailing in a head to head ballot with
>Gore for the US presidency.
Well, your prediction of a Nader defeat in an actual two-way race between Nader and Gore, Nader and Bush, Nader and Buchanan, etc. is a hypothesis. By your logic, it must be more irrelevant than a finding that Nader was the Condorcet winner in 2000, as Barry C. Burden's finding is based on facts of voter preferences collected from the National Election study data ("Nader beats Buchanan [659-240], Gore [527-500], and Bush [562-491], thus making him the Condorcet winner," Barry C. Burden, "Minor Parties in the 2000 Presidential Election," 2-3, <http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/burdosu.pdf>), whereas yours is based on your assertion alone. :-)
>The assumption here, that 100% of Bush voters would have preferred
>Nader to Gore, seems completely mad.
That's not Burden's assumption. Simply based on logic, it is possible for Nader to become the winner in a two-way race between Nader and Gore without 100% of votes from the 2000 Bush voters if many voters who actually voted for Gore, Buchanan, etc. in 2000 would have preferred to vote for Nader rather than Gore in a two-way race.
>To deny them the right to vote for the candidate of their choice,
>Bush, as the supporters of the Condorcet system seem to advocate, is
>contrary to every principle of democracy to start with.
It appears that you don't understand the Condorcet method, which (like Instant Runoff Voting, Approval Voting, etc.) is a way of ranking the candidates in an election in which more than two candidates run, not a method that allows only two candidates to run.
BTW, it is not necessary for one to be an advocate for the implementation of the Condorcet method to write an analysis like Burden's or gain insights into voter preferences from it.
>Only a crank or a democraphobiac would advocate an electoral system
>designed to elect candidates who are the least offensive though.
Perhaps, you have missed this point in Burden's essay: the Condorcet winner isn't necessarily different from the winner by plurality rule, majority rule, Instant Runoff Voting, etc. As a matter of fact, Burden says that "every [US] presidential election for which adequate survey data exist [except the 2000 election] seems to have chosen the Condorcet winner, regardless of minor party showings" (Burden, 3). What is important is that in 2000, unlike previous elections, neither Bush nor Gore was the Condorcet winner. The unprecedented divergence between the actual winner (Gore by plurality rule, Bush by the Electoral College + the Supreme Court) and the Condorcet winner in 2000 suggests an unprecedented divergence between actual votes and true voter preferences. The more divergent actual votes are from true voter preferences, the less legitimate the resulting government is.
The unprecedented divergence also indicates that the left-wing politics like Nader and the Green Party's had much broader appeal than the proportion of actual votes for Nader in 2000 might make one think. Good news for Nader, the Green Party, and activists/organizers/intellectuals on the left in general. -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>