Re: [EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

2013/7/26 Peter Gustafsson > from: jameson.qu...@gmail.com > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:54:09 -0600 > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com; > electionscie...@googlegroups.com > Subject: [EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries > Here's a simple proposal for a top

Re: [EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:54:09 -0600 > To: > election-methods@lists.electorama.com<mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com>; > > electionscie...@googlegroups.com<mailto:electionscie...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: [EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries >

Re: [EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

from: jameson.qu...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:54:09 -0600 To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com; electionscie...@googlegroups.com Subject: [EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries Here's a simple proposal for a top-two-like mechanism for primaries, copied from an answer o

Re: [EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

On 07/24/2013 08:54 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: Certainly you could propose complex systems that could be better than this proposal in some ways. For instance, you could use a proportional representation system such as Bucklin Transferrable Voting (BTV) for the first round. But this proposal is a s

[EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

Isn't the crucial thing just the design of the open primary? I mean if the primary is good enough to flush out the relative strengths of all candidates (assume this for sake of argument), then the simplest solution for the general election might also be the stupidest. It might be okay at this poi

[EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

Here's a simple proposal for a top-two-like mechanism for primaries, copied from an answer of mine on Quora : The simplest good solution would be "*Top 2+1 approval*". That is: - a