[EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

[Peter Gustafsson]

from: jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:54:09 -0600
To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com; electionscience at googlegroups.com
Subject: [EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries
Here's a simple proposal for a top-two-like mechanism for primaries, copied from an answer of mine on Quora:
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.
SNIP

Note that, although this system is built to allow only two parties in the general election, that does not mean it would perpetuate two-party domination. A leftist district could easily have Democrat(s) and Green in the general, and a conservative district could easily have Republican(s) and Libertarian. And if the "minor" party actually had more support, they would go on to win the seat.

Certainly you could propose complex systems that could be better than this proposal in some ways. For instance, you could use a proportional representation system such as Bucklin Transferrable Voting (BTV) for the first round. But this proposal is a simple balance of the requirements: nonpartisan voting, a balance of candidates and parties in the general election, yet focused attention on a few strong candidates.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-----------

Jameson:
Your Quora post was very well put, considerably better than anything that I have put together. That said:

In it, you mention Gerrymandering and Duverger pathologies.But what will this 2+1 system do to break that? From my cursory glance, it appears that if the system would be enacted you would get these kind of districts:
1. Super-right electorate: no dems in the top-3, general election between 2 GOP and one libertarian/constitution party/whatever. GOP wins most of those districts.
2. 1. Super-left electorate: no GOP in the top-3, general election between 2 dem and one Green/workers party/whatever. Dem wins most of those districts.
3. Competitive district: One GOP, one Dem candidate goes to the general election. Voters who prefer left-of-Dem, or right-of-GOP, parties/candidates will vote Dem/GOP according to the "least of evils" thinking, *even* if that is faulty thinking in this case. Meanwhile, voters favoring 3rd party candidates that are politically situated between the two big parties will find that their party experiences massive center squeeze.

As I see it, this would result in a Congress that has 2 dominant parties, plus a smattering of "extremists" on both sides. Those 3rd and 4th party representatives would come from areas which are well out of the country norm, so it would be easy for the big parties to stick it to those places. No pork for you, if you vote small party! The "extremists" would have very few tactical options - mostly they would be forced to vote with the big party closest to them, lest they alienate their voter base. 

Then, when districts are up for redrawing, they would be Gerrymandered out of existence. If a district is held by a Green, the GOP will know that they have no chance of winning it, but they would probably be pleased if the Dem took it - lesser of evils thinking, but from the other direction. The Dem´s OTOH, would see such a district as a big juicy target, since many of its voters have previously voted Dem and consider the Dems as 2nd best alternative. A Little bit of border redrawing between that district and an adjoining district that is also Dem but has less core support for the Greens, and the Dem party has 2 districts instead of one. Likewise on the other side of the political spectrum. 

Yours,

Peter Gustafsson