Quote: Original post by ManaStone

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
Heaven forfend that people should find a compromise candidate. [wink]

The problem with compromising is that if you are starting from two polar opposites, you might end up with solution that doesn't fix the problem and just costs a lot of money.

That's the problem with averaging, not with compromising. Assuming a rational electorate, if a particular candidate is espousing a solution that doesn't fix the problem and costs a lot of money, no voter would put it as her second choice. Without assuming a rational electorate, well, you just have the current crop of problems. Wacky voting schemes don't fix everything.

Quote: Original post by ManaStone

Quote: Original post by LessBread

I also think it's wrong to describe Nader as a spoiler in your scenario. If he had a greater percentage of votes than Gore, that would make Gore the spoiler, especially if enough Gore voters ended up putting Bush over the top.

Well, I think that the Nader voters would more likely vote for Gore than the Gore voters vote for Nader.

I think if we were to pair off Gore and Bush it wouldn't be unrealistic to something similar to the following break down of the Nader voters second choice.

Gore: 69%
Bush: 16%
No second choice: 15%

This would make Gore the winner by 48.01% to 47.64%.

Of course I pulled these numbers out of my ass and I could be completely wrong.

I really don't think it's realistic to imagine 1 out of 6 Nader voters picking Bush as their second choice. The choices can be found here: US presidential election 2000. Bush, Gore, Nader, Buchanan, Browne, Phillips, Hagelin. I think they would more likely go for Buchanan or Browne than Bush depending on whether they were economic nationalists or civil libertarians. Or "none of the above" if that choice was available.