[EM] primary election thoughts

[Bart Ingles]

Sorry, I didn't read the original proposal carefully enough to see that 
it was intended as a type of non-partisan blanket primary.

Open or blanket primaries make it easier to engage in pushover strategy, 
where one party tries to make sure the opposing party nominates a weak 
candidate who can be easily defeated in the general election.  That's 
the main reason most parties (e.g. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian) 
oppose open primaries.  A blanket primary was just defeated in 
California (November 2004).

Also, using an approval-like method in the first round of a two-round 
election makes possible risk-free collusion strategies, where two 
parties gang up to exclude a third (perhaps Condorcet candidate) so that 
they can face each other in the final round.

Would this proposal allow both strategies to be pursued simultaneously?

My preference at present is for a plain approval primary, which is 
either a closed primary or a California-style "modified open primary" in 
which voters can choose any party on election day but can only 
participate in that party's primary.

Bart


Alex Small wrote:

> So, as I understand, the gist of the proposal is:
>  
> 1)  If there is a Condorcet Winner
> and
> 2)  That CW has more than 50% approval,
>  
> then skip the general election.  Otherwise, eliminate candidates with 
> the weakest support and hold a general election using some suitable method.
>  
> That seems reasonable to me.  Some here would probably argue that 
> there's no need for a primary election at all if we use Approval, 
> Condorcet, or some other method suitable for more than 2 candidates.  
> However, I see some practical value to first thinning out the field and 
> allowing a period of further debate before making a final decision.  The 
> only exception should be when there's a clear consensus in favor of one 
> candidate.  Requiring both majority approval and a Condorcet victory 
> seems a reasonable measure of consensus.
>  
> I am not so sure that I like the idea of implementing the approval 
> cutoff at the third rank.  It would make more sense to give voters 
> maximum flexibility by letting them express their own approval cutoff.
>  
> Also, I'm not so sure about setting the cutoff for the general election 
> at 1%.  That might let in just about every candidate in most primaries.  
> I'd be more inclined to say that the top N get in (where N is some 
> number that we can debate).  If one of the candidates decides to drop 
> out then the candidate with the next greatest number of votes can be 
> offered a spot on the ballot.
> 
>     Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:41:09 -0800
>     From: Ted Stern
>     Subject: [EM] primary election thoughts
>     To: election-methods at electorama.com
>     Message-ID:
>     Content-Type: text/plain
> 
>     What do group members think of the following primary election proposal:
> 
>     - Ballots allow a voter to rank 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice candidates.
> 
>     - Unlike IRV, more than one candidate can be chosen for any rank.
> 
>     - Any 1st/2nd/3rd choice vote is considered an "approval" vote.
> 
>     - Use Condorcet to tally.
> 
>     - If a Condorcet winner exists, with more than 50% of the voters
>     approving, then that candidate wins immediately and the seat doesn't
>     have
>     to be decided in the general election.
> 
>     - Otherwise, eliminate candidates with less than 1% approval.
> 
>     - On the general election ballot for that seat, candidates will be
>     listed
>     with the Condorcet winner (if any) at the top, with remaining candidates
>     listed below in order of approval.
> 
>     This would be an alternative to either Louisiana-style top two runoff or
>     closed party primary.
> 
>     I'm curious what advantages of full Condorcet might be lost by
>     reducing the
>     options to only 3 ranks.
> 
>     [The general election could also use a 3 choice ballot with some robust
>     Condorcet completion method such as Ranked Pairs (wv), optionally using
>     approval-weighted pairwise ranking.]
> 
>     IMO, the main benefits of such a primary would be
> 
>     1) The ballot would be relatively simple, no different from some IRV
>     proposals
>     or the "Borda" of www.vote123.info (really just a Cardinal Rating
>     scheme).
> 
>     2) Non-controversial positions would be decided in the primary and
>     the general
>     election ballot would be much less cluttered.
> 
>     3) Popular cross-over or third-party compromise candidates could win
>     races a t
>     the "primary" level without being eliminated before the general
>     election,
>     and even more clutter would be eliminated from the general election
>     ballot.
> 
>     4) The general election would be reduced to just controversial races. In
>     those, candidates would vie for highest approval rating on the general
>     election ballot.
> 
>     In Washington State, the voters approved a Louisiana style
>     top-two-primary
>     initiative last November. This law cannot be changed within the next
>     2 years
>     except by another initiative. There is an IRV initiative circulating
>     in the
>     state. I'd like to see a better alternative.