<div dir="ltr">Well, if the number of candidates is low in the 2nd round, 4, and at least one is likely a light-weight then I doubt it'd be a lot better with a diff system. The real issue is whether having 4 winners in the first round will improve turnout and fix the conservative bias shown in the first round. I'm presuming they're going to go with the top 4 vote-getters being the finalists for now. That's porbably not absolutely terrible if you can eliminate clones in other ways. I know Richie doesn't think Approval Voting would work for the 1st round and maybe they're just holding off on moving out an idea for the 1st round to market their key tweak to the top-two primary. <br>
<br>As for MAV/MCV/SODA, as I understand it, FairVote et al are driven by marketing considerations. They've sunk a lot of marketing into IRV/RCV, the rise in interest in top two primary by heavy-weights "independents", opens up the chance for FairVote to adapt their product to the new avenue for demand w.o. seemingly jettisoning their previous spiel. This is an alternative fix to my fix to how IRV can get unwieldy with lots of candidates. <div style>
<br>So I'm resigned to being a bit-player in the world of electoral reform, I defend the status quo because I really am skeptical about the number of competitive candidates growing a lot and am thereby skeptical about there being a lot of value added to improving on IRV, whereas the scope for muddying the waters and dividing and conquering electoral reform activists is considerable. <br>
<br>My big disappointment is that Richie thinks its unreasonable to argue that the decision to use single-member or multi-member elections for congress-persons is a federal matter, not a matter of states' rights as I wanted to argue. The judicial circuit is not a great one, he didn't say it couldn't happen, but my interp is that he's less excited about the prospect of pushing for Am. forms of PR. The Dems don't want it because they want to dominate. The Pubs don't want it because it wd be tantamount to agreeing to become a somewhat more fiscally conservative version of the Democratic party of yore. The #OWSers have too much an anarchist flare that doesn't believe in election reform period. The tea-partiers are electoral fundies who, not unlike most US_Americans, don't appreciate the scope and need for experimentation in democracy. <br>
<br>And so I'll do my bit, but I'm waiting for some heavy weight center-right-ish person to see the need for Am forms of PR in the wake of the GOP civil war between the establishmentarians, the libertarian/RPaul activists and the RRight/CDU-like activists pulling in opposite directions. <br>
dlw</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">dlw</div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This is a good idea, but it would be even better if you used a better voting system for the second round. In this case, approval or score would be adequate, but MAV or MCA would be better. If I'm going to dream, then SODA would be even better.<div>
<br></div><div>I know, David, that you value working hand-in-hand with FairVote pretty highly. And I know that they have objections to approval and score, objections with which I disagree but which are not entirely without logic. But from my discussions with Richie, none of his root objections would apply to a Bucklin system like MAV or MCV or to a delegated one like SODA. If you think he'd listen to you, I'd be happy to patiently explain my arguments there, so you could pass them on.<br>
<div><br></div><div>Jameson<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">2013/6/22 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br></div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">Rob emailed me today sharing this article.<br><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/fairvote-s-fix-for-top-two-in-california#.UcXGAPmNpsl" target="_blank">http://www.fairvote.org/fairvote-s-fix-for-top-two-in-california#.UcXGAPmNpsl</a><br>
<br>The idea is to pick 4 in t he first round and then use rank-choice voting in the final round with only four candidates, which is another way to keep down the amount of time spent on rcv elections. <br><br>It seems they're trying to coopt the top two primary momentum.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<div><div><div dir="ltr">dlw</div></div>
</div></font></span></div>
<br></div></div>----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>