<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
It's well known that Approval is precinct-summable. Approval also has the easiest, simplest, and least expensive hand-count, of any<br>method other than Plurality. That means that Approval can have the security of a handcount. Even if it's somehow possible to make<br>a computer-count secure, the security of a handcount is easy, already well-established and well-known.<br><br>Of course Approval would be the obvious thing to replace Plurality with, in state and national elections. <br><br>What about local municipal elections, where Runoff is what is currently in use? Plainly the simplest, most modest change would<br>be to replace Runoff with Approval-Runoff. Just do Approval (instead of vote-for-1) in the 1st balloting of a Runoff election, and then hold the runoff as<br>usual, between the top two votegetters.<br><br>That would almost surely violate FBC. Voting for favorite, F, in addition to compromise, C, in the 1st election could cause F to edge<br>C out of the runoff. But maybe F can't win the runoff, but C would have. So someone worse than C wins.<br><br>So Approval-Runoff is no good as a _destination_ method. But it's still acceptable as a<br>_transitional_ method: It could bring some public attention to Approval, give Approval some precedent, which might enable<br>its adoption for state &/or national elections. Or maybe that would have to happen via the mechanism of Approval-Runoff being<br>replaced by Approval in municipal elections, where the municipal Approval is what provides precedent for state and national<br>Approval.<br><br>Not that this is very important, because Approval-Runoff, failing FBC as it does, is only a transitional proposal, but the<br>options available for Approval could also be offered in Runoff's 1st balloting in which Approval replaces vote-for-one. But of course<br>I wouldn't suggest bothering to even mention options for Approval-Runoff, since it's no good as a destination method, due to its<br>FBC failure.<br><br>I merely mention Approval-Runoff because it could maybe facilitate earlier adoption of genuine Approval, municipally, &/or state<br>or federal.<br><br>The name SODA refers to Approval elections in which delegation is the only option. I speak of delegation as one of various options<br>for Approval elections, most of which are mutually compatible for availability in the same Approval election. I refer to that as<br>the delegation option, reserving "SODA" for a method consisting of Approval with no added options other than delegation. I'd prefer<br>also offering and making available all the options I've named, such as AOC, AOCBucklin, MTAOC, MCAOC (those of course include the<br>options of voting ordinary ABucklin, MTA or MCA ballots too). And the delegation option too.<br><br>The delegation option would be for people who want to leave it all to their favorite candidate. It also automatically avoids C/D, if the<br>various delegates can negotiate before they use their delegated votes, and after they have the initial ballot-results, and if their negotiated agreements are public<br>and binding.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>