[EM] replacing top-two primaries

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 10.10.2021 22:11, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> 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.)

I mentioned this privately to Forest, but I suppose I could do so here
too. James Green-Armytage has suggested a "semi-eliminative" method
where candidates may withdraw between rounds. His paper is here:
http://jamesgreenarmytage.com/dodgson.pdf

Apparently, when combined with a last resort IRV-style elimination (if
nothing changes between rounds), and assuming that a certain type of
strategy is not often executed, it has better strategy resistance than
plain eliminative Condorcet methods.

Perhaps this kind of mechanism could also be applied to Approval-style
runoffs? Candidate withdrawal might not appear to make much of a
difference to Approval ballots since they technically pass IIA, but
since the voters may alter their ballots between rounds, that's not a
problem.

It may not help in a Burr dilemma if the voters err too much towards the
center candidate, because the center candidate would claim support and
ask the wing candidate to withdraw (and definitely wouldn't withdraw,
himself), but if the voters err the other way, then the wing candidate
might drop out in the second round to stop the greater evil from winning.

-km