Jon, If we could get most people to agree that incumbents have an unfair advantage, and to want to do something about it at the structural level, then this proposal can accomodate that. Still leave the incumbent off the ballot, but instead of saying he/she sits at a virtual 50%, make it 40% or something. If any challenger gets above 40%, then elect the one with the highest approval, otherwise re-elect the incumbent. You can adjust that 40% number up or down until the right amount of incumbents are winning.
Or you could make that number could change over time. After your first term as governor, it's 50%. After your second term, it's 40%. After your third term, it's 30%. I think I would prefer this to hard term limits, because the governor is still has to answer to the voters during all their terms. As it is now, they walk into their last term essentially as a lame duck with no accountability. Of course, it's not a simple system and I'm not proposing it could be implemented any time soon. But it's fun to think about. ~ Andy On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:29 AM, aGREATER.US <i...@agreater.us> wrote: > Incumbents have a huge unfair advantage in that corporations (including > unions) pour money into their reelection campaigns. It's the devil you know > syndrome and also smart money as incumbents are statistically more likely > to win and owe the favor. In this context I wonder if the best voting > method for publically funded elections is different from the status quo. > Like Schoedinger's Cat, we live in both universes until we know whether > there will be meaningful reform or not. I'm guessing there will be but only > if all reform groups form an overarching alliance of word and deed if not > an actual formal group. > > The only thing I don't like about voting for all candidates to see who > runs against the incumbents is it doesn't give them a chance to fail in the > primary first, and they can save all the legalized graft for the general > election. > > Jon > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Andy Jennings <electi...@jenningsstory.com> > wrote: > > > A lot has been said about strategy in approval voting. Here are some > strategies that have been suggested: > > > > - U/A: If the candidates are basically in two groups for you, > unacceptable and acceptable, then approve the ones who are acceptable. > > > > - Honest: Decide what "approval" means to you. Consider each candidate > separately and decide whether or not you approve him/her. > > > > - Rank all the candidates first, then decide where your approval cutoff > is. (perhaps based on polls) > > > > - Figure out who the two front runners are, approve the one you prefer > as well as any candidates you like better than that. > > > > These are all good, simple strategies, but perhaps it will be even > simpler than this. I mean, in most political races there will be an > incumbent, which is a natural cutoff. So just approve everyone you like > better than the incumbent. As for the incumbent, approve him/her if you > think he/she is doing a good job. > > > > In fact, this suggests a variant of approval voting that might be > useful: you could leave the incumbent off the ballot and say that if no > challengers achieve 50%, then the incumbent wins re-election. That way, > you're only replacing the incumbent when you're "trading up", or finding > someone who most people like better than the incumbent. With many good > candidates on the ballot, it seems like it would be much less likely for > incumbents to get re-elected. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > ~ Andy > > > > ---- > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list > info >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
