from: jameson.qu...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:54:09 -0600
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com; electionscie...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [EM] Top 2+1 Approval primaries
Here's a simple proposal for a top-two-like mechanism for primaries, copied
from an answer of mine on Quora
@lists.electorama.commailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com;
electionscie...@googlegroups.commailto:electionscie...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [EM] Top 2+1 Approval primaries
Here's a simple proposal for a top-two-like mechanism for primaries,
copied from an answer of mine on Quora:
The simplest good solution would
2013/7/26 Peter Gustafsson mining...@hotmail.com
from: jameson.qu...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:54:09 -0600
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com;
electionscie...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [EM] Top 2+1 Approval primaries
Here's a simple proposal for a top-two-like mechanism
On 07/24/2013 08:54 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
Certainly you could propose complex systems that could be better than
this proposal in some ways. For instance, you could use a proportional
representation system such as Bucklin Transferrable Voting (BTV) for the
first round. But this proposal is a
Here's a simple proposal for a top-two-like mechanism for primaries, copied
from an answer of mine on
Quorahttp://www.quora.com/Politics-of-the-U-S/How-would-you-redesign-the-top-two-primary-system/answer/Jameson-Quinn
:
The simplest good solution would be *Top 2+1 approval*. That is:
- a
Isn't the crucial thing just the design of the open primary? I mean
if the primary is good enough to flush out the relative strengths of
all candidates (assume this for sake of argument), then the simplest
solution for the general election might also be the stupidest. It
might be okay at this
