> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 23:30:21 +0300 > From: Juho Laatu >> On 9.7.2011, at 22.23, [email protected] wrote: > > > Here's an idea. > > > > First pick a party (with full knowledge who the candidates are > in each party). > > > > Then hold an open "primary" to pick the winning candidate from > the winning party. > > This sounds like a two-phase single winner election. The first > used single-winner method should maybe be such that it elects > major parties only (i.e. no "weak" compromise parties). I'm not > sure the short description yet guarantees a two-party rule. The > idea of ordering a "late primary" is an interesting approach to > allowing multiple candidates for each party but still keeping > the method simple (two election days probably needed but > otherwise nice and clear). > > Juho
Under our current system those who vote in the primary go to the polls twice, anyway. We would get more interest in the "primary" if it was held after the winning party was chosen. And it would save the waste of having multiple primaries. I would recommend using Approval for both stages; i.e. first for choosing the party, and second for electing someone from the slate of the winning party. By the way, there is no good reason for requiring that the different parties have mutually exclusive slates of candidates. The key to getting real support for the Greens, say, would be for them to add the best quality candidates from the other parties onto their list. Unlike the usual version of "fusion" it would have more than symbolic value, it could lead to an actual victory of the Greens over the Democrats and Republicans. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
