Forest wrote: > What do you think of the Candidate Proxy / Approval hybrid that I > suggested a few months ago? > > Voters fill out regular approval style ballots. If a voter makes only one > mark on the ballot, then (by default) the marked candidate (as proxy for > the voter) may approve additional candidates on behalf of the voter in the > Election Completion Convention.
I like it. My only worry is that the candidates themselves might be far less willing to compromise than the voters. In the California gubernatorial "race", Bill Simon pulled out to avoid drawing votes away from Schwarzenegger, but he's an exception. Most of the candidates are running despite not having any chance of winning, and many of them (Arianna Huffington, Tom McClintock, Peter Camejo, etc.) are likely to take significant votes away from the frontrunners. A candidate would seem to care much more about his own, even slim, chances than about who ends up winning. When I ran for state rep in Texas, I wouldn't have considered voting for one of my major-party opponents even if I had vastly preferred one to the other. (I didn't.) On the other hand, maybe a candidate would be likely to compromise in an Election Completion Convention once it's obvious that he has no chance of winning. It's fun to play kingmaker, even if the results might sometimes resemble the "corrupt bargain" of 1824. Would the public accept the winner of an ECC if he didn't get the most proxy votes in the public election? ===== Rob LeGrand, psephologist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Citizens for Approval Voting http://www.approvalvoting.org/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
