Isn't the crucial thing just the design of the open primary? I mean if the primary is good enough to flush out the relative strengths of all candidates (assume this for sake of argument), then the simplest solution for the general election might also be the stupidest. It might be okay at this point to be stupid (in a sense), because the necessary information was already gained in the smart primary. The general election need only contribute a decisive form to that information, and plurality might even be ideal for this.
Maybe I misunderstand (I'm not an expert on methods). I wonder what information a smart general election can provide that a smart open primary cannot. I ask because the primaries are extra-constitutional and relatively easy to improve on the basis of technical merit and utility, whereas the structure of general elections cannot be changed except by force (big money, big media, big fight). -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/in Jameson Quinn said: > The simplest good solution would be "*Top 2+1 approval*". That is: > > - a primary using approval voting > - the top two advance to the general election, plus the top vote-getter > outside that party if they're both from the same party > - then a general election using approval voting. > > Why is this good? In the US today, primaries serve two > purposes. They help general-election voters focus their attention, > so they can take a deeper look at the serious candidates and ignore > the less-serious ones; and they help avoid problems with > vote-splitting. But vote-splitting is scarcely a problem in a decent > voting system; the only reason it's so important is that we use a > stupid voting system ... plurality voting. ... ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info