Thank you, Dave Ketchum, for your excellent feedback.
Here is the revision of this section based on trying to implement your
requested changes.
Your comment about the "open primary" issue helped me realize this isn't
likely to be an issue after we get people to stop using plurality
voting. It was offered here in Oregon as a ballot referendum, and it
was surprising how few people realized it was not a good idea. (It was
yet another [flawed] attempt to compensate for the unfairness of
plurality voting.)
---------- Multiple rounds of voting ----------
Current elections commonly use multiple rounds of voting, and the second
round, which functions as the runoff election, is often limited to only
two main candidates. These traditions have evolved because they help to
overcome the weaknesses of plurality voting.
When any of our supported election methods are used, just one round of
voting may be sufficient. In this case all the candidates, which may be
up to as many as ten or possibly twenty, can compete in the same
single-round election.
If a runoff election is also used, it does not need to be limited to
just two main candidates. In fact, offering three or more candidates in
a runoff election increases the fairness of the results. Why? It allows
for two candidates that appeal to the majority of voters and at least
one candidate that appeals to the “opposition” voters.
Primary elections, in which political parties choose just one candidate
each to progress to the main election, might not be needed for
less-competitive elections. However, in highly competitive elections
such as for national parliament seats and presidencies, primary
elections are still needed for several reasons. They allow voters to
focus attention on more candidates initially, which accommodates more
choices. Then during the main election voters can focus on the most
popular candidates, without distractions from less-popular candidates.
Primary elections also serve to foster political dialogue and the
resolution of intra-party differences, so the cost of primary elections
needs to be balanced against their benefits when considering whether
they are still needed.
When choosing which candidates deserve to progress to a runoff election,
we do not offer specific recommendations for interpreting results –
beyond obviously including the most popular candidate. There are various
possibilities for how to choose the second, third, and additional
candidates, and the best approach would depend on which of our supported
methods is used (in the earlier round), and other details. This
complexity overlaps with the complexity of choosing a best method to
increase proportional representation.
Regardless of whether our supported election methods are used with or
without runoff elections, the results will be much fairer than can be
achieved using plurality voting with multiple voting rounds.
---------- end ----------
Richard Fobes
On 8/31/2011 9:04 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
Thank you Dave Ketchum and Peter Zbornik for your excellent responses
to my first draft of the "multiple rounds of voting" section! I have
tried to incorporate your requested improvements, while attempting to
keep it short.
Here is what I've got now for this section:
-------------- Multiple rounds of voting --------------
Current elections commonly use multiple rounds of voting in an attempt
to overcome the weaknesses of plurality voting. When any of our
supported election methods are used, just one round of voting may be
sufficient.
Although our supported election methods could eliminate the need for
primary elections (in which political parties choose just one
candidate each to progress to the main election), we support the
continued use of primary elections because they foster political
dialogue and the resolution of intra-party differences.
I claim we should promote careful thought as to whether primaries are
worth the expense since some methods, such as Condorcet, have no problem
with clones or near-clones participating.
With an activity changing from essential to useful, there should be
consideration as to other possible ways to attend to its usage.
In situations that are highly controversial, we support the use of two
voting rounds so that voters can focus attention on the most popular
candidates during the second round, without distractions from
less-popular candidates. When multiple voting rounds are used, every
round should use one of our supported election methods. In these cases
it is not necessary to limit the runoff election (the second round) to
only two candidates, because that limit is only needed to accommodate
plurality voting.
Runoffs are essential in FPTP, for FPTP can fail to have any candidate
get a majority. Runoffs should not be needed for this more than very
infrequently with our better methods (and they are EXPENSIVE - thus hard
to justify).
. A thought: If runoffs are not expected, voters had best prepare well
for the main election. If expected, why should the lazy among the voters
bother to prepare well before the main election?
We WANT voters to do well with minimum of effort, so rounds should be
minimized except where they may truly justify their expense.
Also we agree that "open primary" elections are not fair. In this
approach, the supposedly most-popular candidates, regardless of
political-party affiliation, progress to the runoff (main) election.
This approach fails to consider that a near-majority of voters can end
up with only getting to choose between the two candidates who are
preferred by the majority. Expressed another way, the designation of
"most popular" is ambiguous in the context of choosing which
candidates deserve to progress to the main election.
Why must we touch this topic (open vs closed) primaries? Seems like it
is separate from our emphasis on voting methods.
When choosing which candidates deserve to progress to a runoff
election, we do not offer specific recommendations for interpreting
results -- beyond obviously including the most popular candidate.
There are various possibilities for how to choose the second, third,
and additional candidates, and the best approach would depend on which
of our supported methods is used (in the earlier round), and other
details. This complexity overlaps with the complexity of choosing a
best method to increase proportional representation.
Therefore, in this declaration, we are not expressing support for any
specific way to choose which other candidates (besides the most
popular), and how many candidates, deserve to progress to the runoff
election. Fortunately, in the runoff round, any of our supported
methods can produce fair results with three, four, or more candidates
-- in contrast to plurality voting which can handle only two.
Huh? There can be a near tie amongst three and some could wish for all
such to get included even in the FPTP world.
-------------- end --------------
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
