# [EM] A procedure for handling large numbers of candidates using scorevoting with primaries and runoffs.

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at lavabit.com
Tue Apr 10 11:32:30 PDT 2012

```On 04/10/2012 03:57 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> ¡Hello!
>
> ¿How fare you?
>
> We require candidates to get the squareroot of the number of voters
> to get on the ballot with writeins allowed.  Let us look at an
> hypothetical single-winner election:
>
> Let us suppose that 420 people make the ballot.  ¿How can the voters
> vet this many candidates?  Well now, we have a score of parties and a
> score of independents.  That is a score of candidates per party and a
> score of independents.

Or this could also be an option:

Have the first round be Approval. Tell people to be generous, since it's
only a primary. The idea is for the voters to do a very quick judgement
of the candidates, and to err towards admitting a candidate rather than
rejecting him.

Then, once the first round is done, remove everybody who is approved by
less than a certain fraction of the voters. Here, Approval is used as a
kind of probabilistic Range.

Even with a threshold on the order of 1%, that will deal with most of
the candidates. If it doesn't, remove least-approved candidates until
you have narrowed the field down enough (or have more Approval rounds if
you can afford them).

Once you've narrowed down the field to, say, 20 candidates, use your
favorite voting method (Range, MJ, Condorcet) to determine the actual
winner. If you feel like it, have a top-two at the end, as it may deter
certain forms of strategy and, if Abd's right, impart some "utilitarian
weighting" with people not bothering to show up if they don't care for
either candidate.

I think the "primary" rounds should be party- and independent- agnostic,
so that if the voters disregard the parties altogether and just vote for
independents, they should get multiple independents.

-

I see a problem there, however... it's not as great with 20 candidates,
but say you wanted only four in the second round and had a plurality for
your party. Then you could use that to fill all four positions and the
subsequent rounds wouldn't matter. Note that your party restrictions
wouldn't help: the strategic party could just make decoy lists (four in
this case) to fill all the party slots. If you expanded the number of
places for the subsequent rounds when additional parties joined, then
independents would be foolish to stay independent; instead they should
organize mini-parties of their own, even if that means clogging up the list.

So it'd seem that you'd ideally want some kind of proportional
representation method to select from the first list. To keep the
simplicity and speed of the first round, that method should be
Approval-based, something like PAV, and with 20 candidates, you'd get
good diversity in the second round.

Perhaps you could have a dynamic seat size. If the PR method was ranked,
you could have it like this: if a set of candidates of cardinality k
gets more than p Droop quotas, p >= q, then consider that set to hold p
seats. If p >= q, that means some seats will be unused. So if a
candidate got all but one Droop quota, you'd go right to the second
round with him as well as whoever got the final one. For Approval, I'm
not entirely sure how you'd do it.

```