[EM] MUMA with runoffs?

[VoteFair]

On 10/3/2016 12:19 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
 > In many places money appears to be one critical factor in getting
 > someone elected. My preference is to reduce the influence of money.
 > ...

If we used better ballots and better counting methods then money would 
have far less influence.

Currently money is used to take advantage of the limitations of 
single-mark ballots (& plurality counting).  I describe the 
vote-splitting and vote-concentration tactics in this recent humorous 
article:

   https://democracychronicles.com/wild-election/

Better election methods do not have those vulnerabilities.  So, those 
currently-very-effective money-based tactics will not be useful when we 
stop using single-mark ballots.

As Sanders and Trump have demonstrated, the cost of media is not a big 
barrier when the candidate is either reform-minded or able to pretend to 
be reform-minded.

Richard Fobes


On 10/3/2016 12:19 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> Let's start from the assumption that having two rounds is good because
> it improves the quality of the judgement that the voters will make. My
> first thought is that if Condorcet is a good method for the final round,
> it could be used also at the first round. One approach would be to
> replace the first round with one or multiple (official?) polls. It could
> make sense to arrange the preliminary rounds electronically (in the
> internet?) to avoid costs and voters getting tired. It is important for
> a working democracy to maximise the number of voters at the final round.
>
> Arranging multiple similar rounds with the same method has the problem
> that risk of strategic voting may increase, if the voters and parties
> know in detain what the current opinion distribution is. One can however
> fight that by having some time between the rounds. Opinions typically
> change sufficiently to make at least typical Condorcet strategies
> difficult to apply.
>
> If the method used in the first round is different from the method used
> at the final round, then the first round method could be designed so
> that it has a tendency to introduce new candidates that might be weak
> signals that will grow before the final round. Your proposal included
> approval. Approval could be a nice method if voters use it in the spirit
> of "let's list all the candidates that could be reasonable choices".
> That could allow weak signals to pop up. One risk is that large party
> voters would bullet vote for their own candidate in order to eliminate
> any risk of lifting up new competitors. (Small party voters might be
> more likely to vote also for some other small party candidates in
> addition to their favourite candidate.) If voters are dishonest in this
> way, Condorcet could carry more information, e.g. by pointing out
> potential midsize compromise candidates. Anyway, slightly different
> criteria may apply to the first and final rounds.
>
> In many places money appears to be one critical factor in getting
> someone elected. My preference is to reduce the influence of money. At
> the internet age there is actually no need for expensive media
> campaigns. In principle one could distribute all the necessary
> information to the voters using one official web page that gives
> sufficient space to all the candidates (and their dynamic debate too).
> Maybe one round of ads in all newspapers (paid by government?) in
> addition to that, and maybe one set of street ads next to each polling
> station, to contact also those voters that are not connected to
> internet. Few TV debates and interviews (for all candidates, or for
> those candidates that the first rounds pointed out) would also be good.
> Multiple rounds means more money spent and less visibility to potential
> good candidates that are not promoted by some large party or other rich
> supporters (or huge number of average income supporters).
>
> Juho