[EM] two more variations of MMPO

Russ Paielli 6049awj02 at sneakemail.com
Mon Jun 13 21:56:40 PDT 2005

Chris Benham chrisbenham-at-bigpond.com |EMlist| wrote:
> Russ,
> I agree with  Kevin V.'s last post in this thread.  You wrote:
>> The same considerations apply to the "top-two Approval pairwise 
>> runoff" method I suggested a few days ago. If the "turkey raisers" or 
>> cloners succeed, they have simply forced an effective reversion to 
>> basic Approval. 
> In terms of strategy and possible results, no, because in "basic 
> Approval" no-one has any incentive to vote for a "turkey". Assuming the 
> "turkey raisers" would prefer to elect a turkey
> rather than one of the candidates from the rival faction of 
> turkey-raisers, then they have two levels of success: (1) to prevent the 
> election of a candidate from there rival faction of
> turkey-raisers, and (2) to elect one of  their own candidates. It is 
> possible that the net effect of  the turkey-raising is that the final 
> runoff  will be between two turkeys, a complete
> fiasco.
> Also it is unfair that parties with the resources to run two candidates 
> should have an (extra) advantage (in terms of the voting system maths) 
> over parties who can only afford to run one.

I agree. The same consideration applies to two-round runoff, of course, 
which is in widespread use.

> And  if   we  are going to use ranked  ballots  with  an  Approval  
> cutoff,  why  not   something  reasonable to good  like  
> Smith//Approval,  DMC  or  AM?

Yes, I think those first two are solid (but I forgot what AM stands 
for). I think I actually lean toward Smith/Approval. Its one slight 
disadvantage is the requirement to explicitly define and determine the 
Smith set, which DMC avoids. Not that that's difficult to do, of course.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list