It has been pointed out that Demorep proposed something similar some time ago. Demorep's proposal, of both yes/no ratings for each candidate as well as ordinal rankings, is likely superior on theoretical and strategic grounds. However, I see 3 disadvantages of his method relative to 3-level approval:
1) Ordinal rankings are more costly to implement 2) The 3-phase process of look for a yes majority, do head-to-head math if needed, and resolve cyclic ambiguity if needed, is more complicated to explain. 3) As anybody on this list can attest, the resolution of cyclic ambiguities can generate considerable debate. Although one method may have decisive virtues over another, the debate gets quite involved. I mean no disrespect to the method, I just think that, at least for now, 2- level and 3-level approval are better to propose from a policy standpoint. Public discussion of the aforementioned approval variants, as well as IRV (which is now on the table for public consideration), may generate public desire to learn of other methods, at which point Condorcet variants like Demorep's can be proposed. I think 3-level approval (my new favorite method) may be a suitable counterproposal for those who have heard of IRV and like the greater level of expressivity inherent in number voting, multi-level systems, etc. It could be generalized to n-level approval, although adding more levels would probably face the problem of diminishing returns. Alex ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
