[EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

[Peter Gustafsson]

Jameson:

I am not a Quora member, and I am not about to sign up. That said, if you want to use the text and answer it there, do go ahead.

Yours,

Peter Gustafsson

________________________________
> From: jameson.quinn at gmail.com 
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 05:09:58 -0600 
> Subject: Re: [EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries 
> To: miningphd at hotmail.com 
> 
> Would you be willing to make this as a comment on Quora? I'm trying to 
> get more activity there, since it's a broader forum with more potential 
> to pull in new users than the mailing list. If for any reason you'd 
> rather not, I'd be happy to answer on the list, but I thought it 
> couldn't hurt to ask. 
> 
> 2013/7/26 Peter Gustafsson 
> <miningphd at hotmail.com<mailto:miningphd at hotmail.com>> 
> from: jameson.quinn at gmail.com<mailto:jameson.quinn at gmail.com> 
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:54:09 -0600 
> To: 
> election-methods at lists.electorama.com<mailto:election-methods at lists.electorama.com>; 
> electionscience at googlegroups.com<mailto: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 
>