Someone really needs to teach the good folks at ESPN about majority methods for selecting a single winner out of a multi-candidate field. And here “field” means the old ballyard. With the All Star Game upon us in this centennial year of the greatest song ever written, ESPN sponsored a Battle of the Bands.
From an initial field of ten artists doing their interpretation of ‘Take Me Out To The Ballgame,’ ESPN gave its viewers a runoff among the top three. The winner (Gretchen Wilson) won with 44%.
Seems we might have come up with a better election method; my first choice out of the ten came in third (with about 20%, in the runoff) in the runoff, so I suggest Condorcet.
__________
Propagation: Seeds & scions (5)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBacks
To graft a scion to this planting, please use the following URL:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=1717
(Non-MT bloggers click here to send pings.)
Grafted scions that are not compatible with this planting's stock will die or be pruned out by the Orchardist.
About the comment form
Please note that the name you enter below and the first several words of your comment will appear on the right sidebar of the blog's front page, under "Propagation." New propagators might want to look at the comment policy.
Please do not enter long URLs into the seedbed. Either mark them up using html hyperlinks or convert them to a "tiny URL." Thank you!
The soil is ready for planting:
`
Maybe this was copied from the US Constitution, where a presidential “runoff” moves from the Electoral College to the House, which can vote among the top three.
As someone noted in 2000, I think, this would mean that if Bush and Gore had stayed tied, and one or two Electors defected and cast write-in votes for Colin Powell, and the election had gone to the HR, then the CongReps would have been within their rights to elect Powell as President.
Quaere what would happen if only two candidates (as is usual) scored any Electoral Votes for President, and a tie (or abstentions) meant neither got 270 out of 538, and then one died before the HR could vote. As I read the document, this means the HR can only elect the remaining candidate, or no-one, over the next 4 years. Or would the VP accede ASAP if the Senate filled the number 2 slot before the House filled number 1?
Seed planted by Tom Round — 15 July 2008 @ 22:17
I believe a top-3 runoff was in place in the German Weimar constitution for direct presidential elections.
On the (ahem, off topic) questions regarding the electoral college…
If no candidate wins 270, then it goes to the House. Period. If no one wins a majority of state delegations in the House vote, then it would indeed be the VP who would become president. There is always somewhat more likely to be a VP qualified than a President, because the Senate chooses the VP by a majority vote (when no one has obtained 270 electoral votes for VP). The House, on the other hand, can have entire state delegations unable to vote, because there may be a tie among the state’s Representatives.
Of course, if there is also no new VP qualified, then the law of succession takes effect. Notwthstanding its possible unconstitutionality, the Speaker of the (newly elected) House would become President (but I think only as acting president till such time as a President was qualified).
On the Bush-Gore race if it “had stayed tied,” of course, it never was tied. Gore won, and Bush’s theft of the Florida electoral votes put the de-facto electoral-vote lead far out of tie range. But otherwise Tom’s scenario is as constitutionally valid as it is implausible, I believe. And a lot more constitutionally valid than what actually happened.
Seed planted by MSS — 16 July 2008 @ 13:06
Weimar was majority-plurality (somewhat like French assembly elections now). So, a runoff could have 3 or more candidates, with plurality sufficing.
Wikipedia article says that a party could switch its candidates between rounds (which is not permitted in France, or is it?).
In fact, apparently Hindenburg, elected in 1925, had not run in the first round, and was elected in round two with less than 50%–perfectly demonstrating how the Weimar presidential election system worked!
In 1932 he just missed reelection in the first round, then won in a 3-way field (against Hitler and the Communist candidate) in the runoff.
Interesting.
Seed planted by MSS — 16 July 2008 @ 15:23
> On the (ahem, off topic) questions
Well, it did start off topic. The seed is planted in the east, but the vine spreads towards the west…
Weimar: was there a percentage cutoff (France, I believe, sets, or set, 12.5% of the total enrolled electorate if you’re not among the top two) or was it just free for all, ie only voluntary withdrawals?
I assume France doesn’t allow candidate substitution, as Bernard Rudden’s sourcebook cited a case where a candidate won “unopposed” because his only over-12.5% opponent died between ballots. The Conseil Constitutionelle upheld the result. In Australia, when a similar thing happened in the early 1900s (candidate won automatically because his sole opponent died), the Electoral Act was quickly amended to require a re-run election.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 16 July 2008 @ 17:49
Ah, Weimar, always interesting: The second round indeed was a free for all, though I am not sure what hurdles existed for nominations to either round (e.g. voter signatures, parliamentary support). The extremely short 1920 act on presidential elections, and the paragraphs in the general election act to which it also refers (texts found at http://www.documentarchiv.de), were actually silent on all of these issues. However, as is stated, the interior minister could with the approval of the Reichsrat (the weaker version of the earlier and later Bundesrat) introduce further regulations for the execution of these laws. I found two of those, but neither had any relevance. So I presume there were no great ‘ballot access issues’ at all.
On French candidate substitution: I know nothing about it, but I doubt that that surviving candidate actually won unopposed (as would be the case if the other candidate in the runoff withdrew), since all candidates already have substitute candidates. Such a running mate would normally become the suppléant for the elected member. But then if the substitute withdrew, there probably would have been an election with only one candidate.
Finally, on the topic of baseball, I regrettably have nothing to add except that some of the related music can be addictive, annoying and quite enjoyable all at the same time.
Seed planted by Espen Bjerke — 16 July 2008 @ 20:17