[EM] MUMA with runoffs?

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 11:41:28 PDT 2016


If the 1st balloting were one in which people indicate their favorite, then
if course we wouldn't want a 40% requirement for getting into the 2nd

Offen the CWs won't be the favorite of 40%, as was the case in the
Burlington debacle.

Michael Ossipoff
On Oct 2, 2016 10:31 PM, "Rob Lanphier" <robla at robla.net> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 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.
> We've both been advocates for over 20 years, and I used to be convinced of
> the mathematical advantages of a single stage election.  However, now that
> we all have witnessed the IRV dynamic in more and more settings (e.g.
> Burlington 2009), I think I've become convinced that a 2-stage process has
> big advantages for making good decisions in high stakes elections.  It's
> good to have a first stage for democratic vetting to weed out dangerously
> flawed candidates (and to make it possible for the non-crackpots to rise
> above the noise created by the crackpots).
> The trend in user interface design is toward "anticipatory design"[1] (not
> overwhelming the user with too many choices).  As advocates, we have touted
> the benefits of more choices, but that hasn't helped us.  The problem:
> *  An election can have 1 clear frontrunner ("establishment candidate"), 2
> other viable choices, and 5 extremists
> *  The frontrunner can lump his/her opposition in with the extremists, and
> occupy "the center"
> *  The viable opposition can't raise any more money than any of the
> "extremist" candidates
> *  The voters don't have the mental energy to tell the difference between
> a viable choice and an extremist
> *  The frontrunner wins without having to win on merit.
> I'm still not an advocate for IRV, but it's also become clear to me that
> some of the problems with IRV in practice aren't with the tally method.
> I'm living in San Francisco now, and I'm finding that decision fatigue in
> elections is also a problem.  An incumbent has an *enormous* advantage in
> the general election with a ranked choice ballot, because the opposition
> has a difficult time consolidating around a viable alternative.[2]
> Rob
> [1]: http://qz.com/429929/the-next-design-trend-is-one-that-
> eliminates-all-choices/
> [2]: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-Mayor-Ed-
> Lee-may-have-no-challengers-in-5940768.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161003/2971cabb/attachment.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list