[EM] "Top 2+1 Approval" primaries

[Jameson Quinn]

2013/7/26 Peter Gustafsson <miningphd at hotmail.com>

> 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


Democrats would rather have 2 D's than 1 G, but Republicans would rather
have 1R 1G.

Still, in the long run, anything that's not PR is not a full solution to
gerrymandering. I recognize that, but I think my proposal is still a step
forward.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130726/175db419/attachment-0004.htm>