Re: This morning
[{"sender": "LHS <lhsummers@harvard.edu>", "recipients": ["Maskin, Eric"], "timestamp": "Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:52 PM", "subject": "Re: This morning", "body": "I get that formal argument\n\nWhat about aspects not quite in model.\n\nMore folk will run from extremes if they can attract more First run votes. Candidates can position a bit. Separately I pitched this to someone today.\n\nHe said he had heard that because of its greater complexity African American and lower income turnout was depressed. Is there evidence on turnout impacts?"}, {"sender": "Maskin, Eric <emaskin@harvard.edu>", "recipients": ["LHS <lhsummers@harvard.edu>"], "timestamp": "Sep 11, 2018, at 10:20 PM", "subject": "Re: This morning", "body": "Yes, we can expect more extremists to run under RCV. But also more centrists (e.g., Bloomberg). Since the centrists are closer to the median voter, they will defeat the extremists.\n\nThe evidence I have seen suggests that RCV increases turn-out. [But it’s important that voters be given the choice to rank as many or few candidates as they like, so that a voter always has the option of voting for a single candidate (in effect, he would be ranking all other candidates as tied for second). In practice, most voters choose to rank two or three candidates, but a significant fraction just rank one]\n\nIn fact the increase in the diversity of candidates under RCV is related to turn-out. If RCV had been used in 2016, Bernie Sanders could have run as an independent in the general election without fear of guaranteeing a Trump victory. Many of the Bernie supporters who stayed home on election day might then have voted---and presumably would have ranked Clinton second. This would have given Ker a victory over Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and possibly elsewhere).\n\nEric"}]