There were a set of rules. According to the rules, he won. That's not stealing the election, that's winning by the rules. That's like saying that one team "stole" a baseball game because they had fewer hits than the other team. Yeah, but they had more runs, and that's the rules of the game.
It’s not particularly shocking that the nominal winner of an election would not contest the nominal results of that election. To expect a party to do that out of principle would be ludicrously naive.
I'm not sure Lessig expected anything different to come out of this. Sometimes people run to draw attention to some ideas, rather than because they think they have a realistic chance.
In other words, Lessig didn't need to win in order to win. (Whether he actually won, in the second sense, is a different question...)
This is similar to the election in Australia just after Julia Gillard took power from Kevin Rudd. Basically to quash the people complaining that she didn't get voted in and just usurped power instead.
That looks like an example of RCV working as intended. The candidate with a lot of support didn't win because a lot of people also strongly opposed him. I don't see how he would have won if his supporters made him their #2 or #3 choice instead of #1.
That is not what the OP is saying. They are indicating _not_ that the oppo party would win, but that the party in power is clearly lying about the results. If they are lying, then that calls for a new election.
The incoming challenger is riding on a "populist" base. These polices are legitimate "populist" policies. The strategy here is obvious.
reply