<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'>
<pre>Kevin:<br><br>You wrote:<br>
I don't think Approval-Runoff can get off the ground since it's too
apparent that a party could nominate two candidates (signaling that one
is just a pawn to aid the other) and try to win by grabbing both of the
finalist positions. If this happened regularly it would be just an
expensive version of FPP.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>I'd believed that it would just be seen as a minimal change from Runoff.<br>You mean that, because of Approval in the 1st election, it would be too easy<br>for a faction to put two identical candidates in the runoff? Yes, now that you<br>mention it, that's probably so. <br><br>Approval-Runoff suggestion withdrawn.<br><br>You coninued:<br>
SODA actually does allow you to not delegate via checking a box.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Of course. Myself, I think it would be more winnable if non-delegation were<br>the default, and one checks a box to delegate. I think it's best for innovations<br>to be options.<br><br>You continued:<br><br><br>But
a version that required delegation might be interesting because it
wouldn't require an "approval plus checkbox" ballot, it would just need
a vote-for-one ballot.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>But it would be seen as often in violation of a voter's wishes. I feel that optional<br>delegation would be far more winnable.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br></pre> </div></body>
</html>