[EM] SODA in a de-facto two-party system

[fsimmons at pcc.edu]

>
> Having considered these issues, there are two refinements I'd
> make to SODA:
>
> - If, after voting, one candidate has an absolute majority OR
> is the only
> possible winner, they win immediately.
>
> Sure, I can think an argument for why SODA should elect someone
> who's not
> the initial majority winner. But I don't relish the thought of
> having to
> make that argument, either with a politician or with a regular
> voter. And in
> reality, a majority winner is the correct winner in more than
> 95% of the
> cases, so let's just save the time and admit that immediately.
>
>
> - If, after voting, one candidate has fewer than 5% of the
> votes, their
> votes are automatically delegated to the first candidate on
> their preference
> list who has more than 5% (if any). The receiving candidate
> may delegate
> them in turn, only if the result thereby obtained or
> encouraged is
> consistent with the preference order of the original
> candidate. (That means
> that if minor A's order is B,C,D,E,F, and D is the first one
> of those with
> more than 5%, and D's order is C,F,X, E,..., then D may
> delegate these votes
> to C, or to C and F if F is already leading E by a greater
> margin than the
> number of votes in question, or to C, F, and E if D is
> delegating their own
> votes to X as well.)
>
> This appears to be a bigger compromise of principle than the
> above. But
> consider the "kingmaker" case: in a basically 50/50 split, some
> tiny party
> has the balance of votes, and manages to extract concessions far
> bigger than
> their base of support justifies, just in order to [not] delegate those
> votes. I think that's unjust, and this rule would prevent it.
>
> I think that 5% is a good cutoff here; that's tens of millions
> of voters,
> and enough to deserve a voice. It shouldn't be too high, because
> this rule
> is effectively taking power away from voters; that's only
> justified if the
> faction is so small that the power is not legitimate, and so
> it's better to
> err a bit on the small side if anything. But under 5% - that is,
> under 10%
> of the winning coalition - doesn't deserve kingmaker power.
>
> JQ

I like it! Don't be impatient; some of us don't have time to read these things
every day.