Kevin,
I know that you have studied Top Two Runoff more deeply than I have. Here in Oregon measure 65 was defeated recently. It was a version of top two runoff in which the the first round of the runoff replaced the traditional primaries, i.e. it was cast as one grand open primary for all parties and all voters, from which the top two vote getters advance to the other stage in November. It was interesting that the IRV organization FairVote was against the measure, even though there was no IRV initiative on the ballot. It seems to me that Top Two Runoff might be more manipulable than the instant version of the same, since voters could vote insincerely in the first round without having to worry about that messing up their choice in the other stage. I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter. FWS > > Actually some of us will argue that top-two runoff seems likely > to have > better Condorcet efficiency (in the abstract sense) than IRV. I > can see > an argument for both sides. But I would agree that they are > different > systems with different incentives. >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
