I think there's a very simple way around the question of expelling people from the list:
If somebody believes that another person's messages are so odious that he or she can't stand reading such messages, many e-mail programs offer filters that will automatically delete messages from specified recipients. Those who lack such options can always avail themselves of the "delete" key, available on standard computer keyboards. Now, let's get back to voting..... I've been thinking about how one would introduce Approval Voting for local non-partisan races. Many locales use 2-step runoff for some of their elections. Many of us here believe that 2-step runoff is worse than IRV or Approval, but a 2 step election fills the void left by the absence of party primaries. If too many people are running for a single office then some sort of filtering mechanism is clearly desirable. Since most places in the US have primary and general elections, a 2-step local race doesn't really introduce any extra expense to the taxpayers. Given the desire for a filter, to narrow down the field of candidates and allow higher-quality debate (remember the GOP Presidential debates in New Hampshire in 2000?), many people will say "Why not just narrow it down to 2? The winner is then guaranteed to have a majority." We can all point to the Le Pen situation in France, but the guarantee of a majority is a strong selling point. So, it is necessary to articulate the case for leaving room for more than 2 candidates in the second round. Approval Voting can't be plugged until that case is made. Also, it is necessary to decide how the _first_ round will be conducted. One obvious rule should be that if a candidate is the first choice of a majority then he has obviously managed to stand out from a crowded field and a second round may be unnecessary. Another point is that Approval is a very BAD idea for the primary. Say that we're narrowing it down to 4 candidates. The largest faction could all approve their favorite and the 3 Stooges. The second stage would likely include those 4 candidates (although that's not guaranteed, since the other factions may have partially overlapping preferences), and the serious candidate would easily defeat Larry, Curly, and Moe. To sum up: A single-step election may be undesirable for nonpartisan races. The public must be persuaded that selecting only 2 candidates for the final round can lead to undesirable results (e.g. France's Presidential race). Here's an issue where many IRV and Approval supporters can agree. A suitable elimination method must be chosen for the primary race. Plurality may be the simplest reasonable method, with a provision that if somebody wins a majority there is no second round. Also, perhaps the number advancing could be left flexible, so that anybody getting more than N% of the vote goes to the next round (N% might plausibly be 20% or 25%). After the public is sold on these points, the case for Approval must then be made. My conclusion: The case for Approval is actually more difficult on the local level than on the state or national level, even though local campaigns are usually easier to win. The reason is that 2-step runoff may have greater inertia than plurality for non-partisan races. ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
