Variations of Approval and Head-to-Head

The Legislature column in the chart shows what Nebraska calls its “nonpartisan unicameral” election. A constitutional amendment, approved in 1934, requires nonpartisan elections for the office of state senator. The party affiliations of candidates are not listed on ballots. The top two in the fall can be two candidates of the same party. Again, we’ve been using a unified primary and a top-two for decades.

(Turn phone sideways or zoom in.)

Neb compare

The other four columns show proposals, extensions of these concepts, submitted for your Approval (Approval Voting). These are not just for Nebraska, so please implement wherever you like.

The rule of “one per party may advance” in federal elections is to make sure voters have some variety of options, instead of just a big field of Republicans. This could also motivate Democrats to run as Green, or Labor, etc, or as independents (no limit on independents). However we do it, we should make domination of our government, and our minds, a little harder for the Big 2.

It has come to my attention that in proportional representation systems (multiple winners), approval voting is not used, because it would tend to defeat the proportional concept. I have reviewed my previously proposed system of vote-for-2, top-4 semifinal, and head-to-head final, and it should work fine. But when sending only 3 to the semifinal round, I now support a vote-for-1 primary, as shown in this chart.

The previous blog post, about an approval-heavy voting system, has more info and a sample ballot with this head-to-head matches concept.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s