On 12/08/2012 05:42 AM, Don Hoffard wrote:
*Top 6, Top 2, Head to Head Primary*
*Nominations:*
1. In order for a candidate to get into the primary they must get
registered voters to sign nominating cards for them.
2. Each candidate must get at least one quarter of 1% of the registered
voters in their district/state to sign a nominating card for them.
3. Only the top 6 candidates with the most signed nominating cards will
be included on the primary ballot (see exception below).
4. A registered voter may sign a card for more than one candidate, but
only one for each candidate.
5. Only registered voters from the same district/state as the candidate
may sign a nominating card for that candidate.
6. No more than two candidates from each political party will be
included on the primary ballot.
That would blunt the clone (teaming) tendency of using Approval for
nominations, but it could still be gamed. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but
I'll still mention it:
- Party X is at the center and knows its candidate will be elected.
However, to appeal to as many voters as possible, they've been
deliberately vague and know their candidates may be hurt in the primary.
- Thus party X makes decoy parties and tells supporters of X to vote for
all candidates in all the decoy parties.
- By doing so, party X gets their near-top count for their candidate
replicated across numerous parties.
- These clone candidates then take up most of the spots on the primary
ballot, crowding out many of the serious competitors and making party
X's task easier.
7. Only registered voters, from the same political party as the
candidate, may sign a nominating card for that candidate. However, a
political party may allow other registered voters to sign their
candidates nominating card.
Does this mean only registered Democrats can support a Democrat, or that
non-Democrats can also support the Democrat? The first seems to say that
only registered Democrats can do so, while the second seems to say that
if the party wants (say) Republicans to also be allowed, they can do so.
8. Any registered voter may sign a nominating card for any
non-affiliated candidate, but only one for each candidate.
9. In non-partisan position elections 6-7 above does not apply.
How about each party using an internal method to determine the two who
will go on to the primary? If a party wants to use, say Schulze, then
they'll be free to do so. This shouldn't cause much disenfranchisement
because in the context of the better primary and general election
system, if the leadership twists the nomination method to their own
ends, those who disagree can form their own party.
(This actually happened in New York under STV, where some democrats
split to an insurgent Democrat group.)
I suppose that would make the clone attack much easier, though.
*Primary election:*
1. The primary will allow voters to rank each of the candidates from 1
to 5. Number 1 being their top pick and 5 their 2^nd lowest (their
lowest being their one non-ranked candidate).
2. A registered voter is allowed to rank all candidates regardless of
political party.
3. The two candidates that receive higher ranking than any of the other
candidate will move on to the general election. Each candidate is
compared head to head with each of the other candidates. [If AB, AC,
AD, AE, and AF, ( meaning more preference votes) then candidate A
moves on to the general election and if BC, BD, BE, and BF then
candidate B moves on to the general election.]
4. If no candidate meet the head to head criteria in 3 above then the
candidate with the lowest preference vote is eliminated first, then the
next lowest eliminated next, until only 2 candidate remain and they will
move on to the general election. [i.e. the Instant Runoff System]
I'd suggest that 3 and 4 be interleaved, i.g. first you try to find the
pairwise winner, but if there isn't one, you eliminate the one that's
last, then you look for the pairwise winner among the ones left, and so on.
Doing so ensures the system doesn't radically change its character from
a Condorcet method into a non-Condorcet method just because someone
manages to engineer a cycle (or just because a cycle appears benignly).
It's thus more robust, retaining the logic of both methods despite
perturbations.
Furthermore, the changed method would pass Smith. If there are three
serious candidates and three (extremist) not-serious candidates, and
pairwise, all the serious candidates are preferred to the not-serious
candidates but there's disagreement (a cycle) about which serious
candidate is the best, then as soon as all but two serious candidate
have been eliminated, those win.
One might make it even more rigorous by treating it like a single-winner
method and then electing first and second place from the resulting ordering.
Unfortunately, neither of the fixes above would remove the tendency for
this method to elect similar candidates. All
