[EM] MUMA with runoffs?

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 2 18:35:20 PDT 2016

I like a 1-stage system, whether Approval, Score, 3-Slot ICT (Deluxe
Approval), or Bucklin, etc., or something fancier.

Half the cost. ...& it seems to me that, when we discussed it before, there
were other advantages to a 1-stage election.

Michael Ossipoff
On Oct 2, 2016 4:56 PM, "Rob Lanphier" <robla at robla.net> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> My apologies for the list flakiness and Electowiki.  I admittedly have
> only been skimming the list every so often, and I'm considering other
> mediums for discussion.  Migration of the wiki software is on the table,
> too.  I just need to make the time to play around with all of this.
> Jameson's email below prompted me to say something I've been thinking
> about anyway:
> Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is my opinion that runoffs are in some cases a healthy addition to a
>> voting system. You shouldn't waste time with a runoff if the winner is
>> clear, but if it's a close race, focussing attention on only the
>> most-viable seems like a good idea.
> I agree with this wholeheartedly.  I'm not yet familiar with MUMA, so I
> can't speak to the dynamics it introduces.  I'm also looking at this with
> reasonably fresh eyes.  That may mean my instinct is lacking nuance y'all
> have.
> Jameson, I'm also not responding to your suggested algorithm just yet.  On
> first skim it looks plausible and very good at a technical level, but I
> haven't entirely thought through how the complexity is a necessary product.
> Here's the simple two round I would propose for U.S. presidential
> elections:
> Round 1: Simple up/down vote on all candidates (approval ballot)  All
> candidates over a reasonably high threshold (e.g. 40%) advance to the next
> round.  If no candidate reaches 40%, then only the top two advance.
> Round 2: Robust single winner system.  Approval would be acceptable, the
> various Condorcet-compliant versions, etc.
> What voters would be answering in the primary is "is this a viable
> candidate that belongs on the debate stage?"  Those candidates who make it
> on through the first round would be presumed eligible for debate
> participation.
> The effect: well, it might be messy involving cases where people aren't
> stingy enough with their votes, and allow crackpots through the first
> round.  Over time, with enough election experience, primary voters would
> learn who to approve.
> Thoughts?
> Rob
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161002/7a6053c6/attachment.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list