Yes. I agree with your scenario of not needing a runoff Abd ul. On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote: > At 09:33 PM 5/26/2010, Kathy Dopp wrote: >> >> Abd ul, >> >> I agree with virtually everything you say here. > > Thanks. > >> However, I would also >> consider that an excellent system for electing one winner would be >> "approval, every voter votes for up to two candidates, followed by a >> runoff of the top two vote getters". It solves some of the problems >> of a simple runoff election, avoids the spoiler effect I think, and is >> very fair. Although it does seem to always require a runoff election. > > > Would you agree that if only one candidate gets a majority in this approval > election, and it is a form of approval, a runoff is unnecessary? A runoff > might only be needed if (1) there is no majority, or (2) there are two > majorities, which is more iffy. > > There is already an excellent system that is not terribly different from > this, and the only difference between how it was used is that it wasn't > coupled with a runoff for majority failure. And I'm suggesting a couple of > tweaks. I'd be thrilled just to see original Bucklin restored, it worked, > and it's a much better system than the propaganda has claimed. > > Perfect, almost, for a primary election in a runoff system, because it's > much better at finding *real* majorities than IRV. > >
-- Kathy Dopp http://electionmathematics.org Town of Colonie, NY 12304 "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the discussion with true facts." Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf Voters Have Reason to Worry http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf View my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
