[EM] replacing top-two primaries

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Steve,

> From: Steve Bosworth
> TO: Kevin Venzke
> 
> Kevin Venzke wants to replace Top Two Primaries.

I would say Rob wants to replace the current top-two primary, and I want to argue for
non-eliminative two-round (NETR) methods.

> Could not the objections to top two primaries be optimally satisfied by removing such primaries
> altogether, and instead electing the winner in the general election by using Majority Judgment (MJ)?

I think it's better to have a primary as part of the method, than to leave it out and have 
parties determine privately which candidates they want to nominate. (They will probably do it to
some extent in any case, but perhaps they will do less of it if the method handles it well.)

There are certainly single-round methods that I think are good, which in theory they can handle
any number of candidates.

But I feel very suspicious that a lot of voters fixate on their favorite candidates only, and
will vote as though they are confident that these candidates will win. Or, that they are just
indifferent to the result if they don't win.

(This will cause at least the appearance of a chicken dilemma within a party. But CD discussions
tend to assume that the voters understand that they are participants in such a dilemma. I'm not
at all sure that voters will actually see their situation in such a way.)

If this is the case, how do we account for this in a design? Basic approaches:

1. Parties privately determine ahead of the election who should be nominated, so that voters
have fewer choices in the single-round election.
2. The method has two rounds, and in the final round voters have perhaps only two options left.
3. The method has two rounds, but the second round doesn't remove any options. Instead, try to
get voters to focus on defeating a specific candidate, that they may not like, who is "likely
to win."

This third one is untested, of course.

Kevin