[EM] Cumulative Approval (Not CRAB) [Was: CR vs Condorcet]

[Forest Simmons]

This sounds like a good idea to me for situations in which it is not too
inconvenient to do an actual two stage process.

As Alex said in his "filter" posting, if we're going to go to all the
trouble of having primaries, why not do them right?

Using two stage cumulative approval we could say that the first stage was
the primary, and that all candidates with x percent approval survive to
the second stage.

In the second stage the new approvals add on to the old.  This cumulative
aspect could moderate the temptation of using insincere strategy in the
first stage (designed to throw an opponent off balance by feigning
weakness or strength  of self or another).

Forest

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Gervase Lam wrote:

> Condorcet has a good chance of going right to the voter
> median in Condorcet's 1st election, instead of in the 2nd election
> as Approval might do, if people's estimates were off in the 1st election.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
> --
>
> I think it is best to assume that the 2nd Approval election is independent
> of the 1st Approval election.  Take the usual example of the US
> Presidential Election that happens every four years.  The rise and fall of
> the "Flower Power" era happened more or less within four years.  What I am
> trying to say here is that the principles that society hold can change
> dramatically between the 1st and 2nd election.
>
> So may be a better way of using Approval would be to have a 2 Round
> Cumulative Approval (i.e. a 2 Round version of Forrest's CRAB).  The 1st
> round could be considered to be the "1st election" and the 2nd round the
> "2nd election".
>
> People would not be so averse to 2 rounds.  3 rounds is stretching it.
>
> Thanks,
> Gervase.
>
> ----
> For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
> please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
>
>

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em