[EM] STAR

[Toby Pereira]

 Chris
I thought one of your big problems with STAR was the cloning thing. So the fact that score ballots might jeopardise the clone run-off would be a good thing wouldn't it?
Your approval opposition run-off is perhaps similar in outlook to what I suggested previously about using a sequential proportional method to elect two candidates to the run-off. Except that I would deal with clones by allowing a single candidate (or their exact clone depending on how you want to define it) to win both seats in the run-off. In the case where single candidate has so much support that they could win the first two seats in a proportional election, it would be deemed that no run-off is needed.
Toby
    On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 13:38:45 BST, C.Benham <cbenham at adam.com.au> wrote:  
 
  
Toby,
 
 

Also a run-off between the most two approved candidates still has STAR's clone problem.
 
 Some years ago I suggested that 2-round Top-Two Runoff  could be improved by using approval ballots in the first round
 and then having a runoff between the most approved candidate (the AW) and the candidate with the most approval opposition
 to the AW (i.e. is most approved on ballots that don't approve the AW).
 
 
If the most approved candidate is cloned, the run-off becomes irrelevant. 
  
 Spoken like someone who lives in parliamentist country. "Clones" aren't necessarily identical.  There could be slight political differences
 or one may be less corrupt, or one could just have a much better haircut.
 
 Parties being having incentive to each field two candidates (even if they are "clones") is maybe not too bad.  But STAR uses score ballots
 so there is a danger that there being two candidates from the same party might cause voters to not give both of them max score enough
 to stop both of them from making the final.
 
 
However, I just don't think that STAR's failure here can reasonably be called a monotonicity failure.
 
I think it is very much like one and it's claiming of bragging rights on that point over IRV is unfair and misleading.
 
 Chris
 


                     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230821/69682c65/attachment-0001.htm>