<div dir="auto">Thanks for those insights!<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I hope that the Condorcet Club can see the value of IRV in this context.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Aug 28, 2023, 12:09 PM C.Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au">cbenham@adam.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Forest,<br>
<br>
Why not? If that's what they want to do I can't see any problem.<br>
<br>
Given that we have LNHarm no voter has any particular incentive to
bullet vote,<br>
and only those voters who are confidant that their favourite can
make the IRV last <br>
N (or only care about getting their favourite elected) will have
incentive to not bother <br>
indicating any lower preferences.<br>
<br>
Some of the voters will be concerned that their favourite won't
squeeze in to the <br>
IRV last N, so they'll give one or two lower preferences so that
their single vote<br>
can be transferred. This will likely include some who wouldn't
bother doing that if<br>
they weren't honouring preference-swap deals.<br>
<br>
Chris B.<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>On 29/08/2023 3:18 am, Forest Simmons
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Well, that wouldn't work so well if everybody
bullet voted.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Aug 28, 2023, 10:24 AM
Forest Simmons <<a href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">forest.simmons21@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>For practical purposes, this appeals to me the most so
far.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But the question remains about how to
determine the number N.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Why not just use the number ranked (or
approved, as the case may be) on the average primary
ballot? </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Aug 27, 2023,
12:42 PM C.Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">cbenham@adam.com.au</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><br>
I am strongly of the view that the best practical
way to narrow down the field of candidates in one
big open primary <br>
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,<br>
and just select the IRV (aka STV) last N
candidatesI</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p> <br>
I worry that if the use of approval ballots for
this purpose is promoted, the powers-that-be won't
be interested in anything<br>
more complicated than "just select the N most
approved candidates" and (if the election is for
an important powerful office)<br>
we will be left with N corporatist clones.<br>
<br>
In say the US presidential election, there is (or
can be) quite a bit of time and campaigning
between the primary election and<br>
the main general election, so I don't think it
matters much if candidates without much "approval"
in the primary make it on to<br>
the ballot for the final general election.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"><b>Forest
Simmons</b><span><span> </span></span><a href="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" title="[EM] Condorcet meeting" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">forest.simmons21 at
gmail.com</a><br>
<i>Sat Aug 26 15:03:20 PDT 2023</i><span></span>
<ul>
<li><br>
</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">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
</pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>