[EM] Condorcet meeting

[C.Benham]

Forest,

Why not?   If that's what they want to do I can't see any problem.

Given that we have LNHarm no voter has any particular incentive to 
bullet vote,
and only those voters who are confidant that their favourite can make 
the IRV last
N (or only care about getting their favourite elected) will have 
incentive to not bother
indicating any lower preferences.

Some of the voters will be concerned that their favourite won't squeeze 
in to the
IRV last N, so they'll give one or two lower preferences so that their 
single vote
can be transferred.  This will likely include some who wouldn't bother 
doing that if
they weren't honouring preference-swap deals.

Chris B.

On 29/08/2023 3:18 am, Forest Simmons wrote:
> Well, that wouldn't work so well if everybody bullet voted.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023, 10:24 AM Forest Simmons 
> <forest.simmons21 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     For practical purposes, this appeals to me the most so far.
>
>     But the question remains about how to determine the number N.
>
>     Why not just use the number ranked (or approved, as the case may
>     be) on the average primary ballot?
>
>
>     On Sun, Aug 27, 2023, 12:42 PM C.Benham <cbenham at adam.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>         I am strongly of the view that the best practical way to
>         narrow down the field of candidates in one big open primary
>         to N candidates should be to just use strict ranking ballots
>         with voters able to rank as many or as few candidates as they
>         like,
>         and just select the IRV (aka STV) last N candidatesI
>
>
>         I worry that if the use of approval ballots for this purpose
>         is promoted, the powers-that-be won't be interested in anything
>         more complicated than "just select the N most approved
>         candidates"  and  (if the election is for an important
>         powerful office)
>         we will be left with N corporatist clones.
>
>         In say the US presidential election, there is (or can be)
>         quite a bit of time and campaigning between the primary
>         election and
>         the main general election, so I don't think it matters much if
>         candidates without much "approval" in the primary make it on to
>         the ballot for the final general election.
>
>         Chris Benham
>
>
>
>>         *Forest Simmons*forest.simmons21 at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Condorcet%20meeting&In-Reply-To=%3CCANUDvfr_qEUF%3DTUVz%3DNP-rt5OkgtkV7VCoOHHeZvmxCwW90vag%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
>>         /Sat Aug 26 15:03:20 PDT 2023/
>>
>>          *
>>
>>
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         I
>>         The choice of n should be flexible enough that if two candidates both had
>>         more than 70 percent approval, and nobody else got more than 49 percent,
>>         then n should be only two.
>>
>>         Perhaps every finalist should have at least 71 percent (about root .5) of
>>         the approval of the candidate with the most approval opposition to the max
>>         approval candidate.
>>
>>         That 71 percent parameter is open to adjustment .
>>
>>         The idea is that we should admit into the final stage anybody with almost
>>         as much approval as Chris Benham's max approval opposition challenger.
>>
>>         fws
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230829/29301e51/attachment.htm>