[EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

[Michael Allan]

Isn't the crucial thing just the design of the open primary?  I mean
if the primary is good enough to flush out the relative strengths of
all candidates (assume this for sake of argument), then the simplest
solution for the general election might also be the stupidest.  It
might be okay at this point to be stupid (in a sense), because the
necessary information was already gained in the smart primary.  The
general election need only contribute a decisive form to that
information, and plurality might even be ideal for this.

Maybe I misunderstand (I'm not an expert on methods).  I wonder what
information a smart general election can provide that a smart open
primary cannot.  I ask because the primaries are extra-constitutional
and relatively easy to improve on the basis of technical merit and
utility, whereas the structure of general elections cannot be changed
except by force (big money, big media, big fight).

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/in


Jameson Quinn said:
> The simplest good solution would be "*Top 2+1 approval*". That is:
> 
>    - a primary using approval voting
>    - the top two advance to the general election, plus the top vote-getter
>    outside that party if they're both from the same party
>    - then a general election using approval voting.
> 
> Why is this good? In the US today, primaries serve two
> purposes. They help general-election voters focus their attention,
> so they can take a deeper look at the serious candidates and ignore
> the less-serious ones; and they help avoid problems with
> vote-splitting. But vote-splitting is scarcely a problem in a decent
> voting system; the only reason it's so important is that we use a
> stupid voting system ...  plurality voting. ...