I believe that the honest preferences in the Pennsylvania presidential election, crucial to Trump's victory, may well have been something like the following: 30: Clinton>Sanders 19: Sanders>Clinton 3: Sanders ("Bernie bros") 48: Trump This is an honest Condorcet cycle! In that case, the people who are arguing that "Bernie would have been a better candidate" would be simultaneously correct (against Trump) and wrong (in a two-way race between Sanders and Clinton). It's also possible that it was like the above, except that the Trump voters had a net preference for Sanders. In that case, Sanders (the self-styled socialist) would have lost to center squeeze! He's certainly not the center one of those three candidates on a left/right axis, but I guess that he is on a feminist/masculinist axis. So, how would different election systems do on the election above? Elects Trump: plurality; plurality with runoff (or primary/general, as happened in reality); IRV Elects Sanders: PAR, Bucklin systems, most Condorcet systems (I think) Elects Clinton: SODA (assuming that Bernie agrees with the majority of his supporters, and that the "bros" don't explicitly use "do not delegate"); perhaps some Condorcet systems (which?) Who knows what would happen: Approval, Score (depends on strategy)

From this distance I gather that overall in the US with those 3 candidates Sanders would be the sincere big CW, and there would be quite a few Sanders>Trump and Trump>Sanders. With similar media access Sanders would likely have been also the sincere plurality winner. I think shake-things-up versus more-of-the-same was more significant than the "feminist/masculinist axis". > Elects Trump: plurality; plurality with runoff (or primary/general, as > happened in reality); IRV On your hypothetical figures IRV and "plurality with runoff" would elect Clinton 49-48. > 30: Clinton>Sanders > 19: Sanders>Clinton > 3: Sanders ("Bernie bros") > 48: Trump > > This is an honest Condorcet cycle! Clinton > Trump 49-48, Clinton > Sanders 30-24, Sanders > Trump 52-48. Clinton looks like the CW. Chris Benham On 11/14/2016 8:23 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > I believe that the honest preferences in the Pennsylvania presidential > election, crucial to Trump's victory, may well have been something > like the following: > > 30: Clinton>Sanders > 19: Sanders>Clinton > 3: Sanders ("Bernie bros") > 48: Trump > > This is an honest Condorcet cycle! In that case, the people who are > arguing that "Bernie would have been a better candidate" would be > simultaneously correct (against Trump) and wrong (in a two-way race > between Sanders and Clinton). > > It's also possible that it was like the above, except that the Trump > voters had a net preference for Sanders. In that case, Sanders (the > self-styled socialist) would have lost to center squeeze! He's > certainly not the center one of those three candidates on a left/right > axis, but I guess that he is on a feminist/masculinist axis. > > So, how would different election systems do on the election above? > > Elects Trump: plurality; plurality with runoff (or primary/general, as > happened in reality); IRV > Elects Sanders: PAR, Bucklin systems, most Condorcet systems (I think) > Elects Clinton: SODA (assuming that Bernie agrees with the majority of > his supporters, and that the "bros" don't explicitly use "do not > delegate"); perhaps some Condorcet systems (which?) > Who knows what would happen: Approval, Score (depends on strategy) > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >

Sorry. I was editing this and my computer crashed; I didn't realize that some of my edits got lost. The CC scenario I intended was: 30: Clinton>Sanders 17: Sanders>Clinton 5: Sanders ("Bernie bros") 48: Trump 2016-11-14 0:14 GMT-05:00, C.Benham <cbenham@adam.com.au>: > From this distance I gather that overall in the US with those 3 > candidates Sanders would be the sincere big CW, and there would be quite > a few Sanders>Trump and Trump>Sanders. With similar media access > Sanders would likely have been also the sincere plurality winner. > > I think shake-things-up versus more-of-the-same was more significant > than the "feminist/masculinist axis". > >> Elects Trump: plurality; plurality with runoff (or primary/general, as >> happened in reality); IRV > > On your hypothetical figures IRV and "plurality with runoff" would elect > Clinton 49-48. > >> 30: Clinton>Sanders >> 19: Sanders>Clinton >> 3: Sanders ("Bernie bros") >> 48: Trump >> >> This is an honest Condorcet cycle! > Clinton > Trump 49-48, Clinton > Sanders 30-24, Sanders > Trump 52-48. > > Clinton looks like the CW. > > Chris Benham > > > On 11/14/2016 8:23 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: >> I believe that the honest preferences in the Pennsylvania presidential >> election, crucial to Trump's victory, may well have been something >> like the following: >> >> 30: Clinton>Sanders >> 19: Sanders>Clinton >> 3: Sanders ("Bernie bros") >> 48: Trump >> >> This is an honest Condorcet cycle! In that case, the people who are >> arguing that "Bernie would have been a better candidate" would be >> simultaneously correct (against Trump) and wrong (in a two-way race >> between Sanders and Clinton). >> >> It's also possible that it was like the above, except that the Trump >> voters had a net preference for Sanders. In that case, Sanders (the >> self-styled socialist) would have lost to center squeeze! He's >> certainly not the center one of those three candidates on a left/right >> axis, but I guess that he is on a feminist/masculinist axis. >> >> So, how would different election systems do on the election above? >> >> Elects Trump: plurality; plurality with runoff (or primary/general, as >> happened in reality); IRV >> Elects Sanders: PAR, Bucklin systems, most Condorcet systems (I think) >> Elects Clinton: SODA (assuming that Bernie agrees with the majority of >> his supporters, and that the "bros" don't explicitly use "do not >> delegate"); perhaps some Condorcet systems (which?) >> Who knows what would happen: Approval, Score (depends on strategy) >> >> >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> > >