Anonymous user
Araucaria
Joined 12 September 2018
no edit summary
imported>Araucaria (Change "Favorite" to "First Choice") |
imported>Araucaria No edit summary |
||
Line 3:
As of 2005, my favorite Condorcet completion method was [[Definite Majority Choice]]. In the interest of expediency, I would favor some kind of transition as follows:
* First Choice plus [[Approval voting|Approval]]: Single First Choice vote, plus [[Approval voting|Approval]] of any number of other candidates. The First Choice is also approved. If no candidate wins >50% of the First Choice votes, elect candidate with highest approval.
* First Choice plus [[Range voting]]. Single First Choice as above, plus a score of 0 to 99 can be given to any number of other candidates. Same fallback as above, except
Once a [[Ratings ballot]] is used, the scores could be tabulated (inferring candidate rankings from their ratings) and reported with 5 different methods for comparison: Top First Choice, [[Range voting]], [[Schulze]], [[Definite Majority Choice]], or [[Cardinal pairwise]] using [[River]].
Line 11:
I would prefer to avoid primary elections. However, they may continue to be required during a transition period. If that is the case, I would recommend using
* First Choice plus Approval. As above. Narrow field to at least 2 candidates, comprising the candidate with highest First Choice totals (single vote winner), most-approved, and second-highest approved, plus any other candidates with higher approval than the Single-Vote winner. The main advantage of this is simplicity, plus it would be a marked improvement of the Top-Two Louisiana-style primary using Single Vote --- voters would be assured that a good selection of alternative candidates would face the Single-vote winner in the general election.
* First Choice plus [[Range voting]]. As above. Narrow field to at least 2 candidates, who would include the Single Vote winner,
You can contact me at ''araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com''.
| |||