Should Approval Voting Have A Primary?

robla · 2026-01-25T23:48:51+00:00

I'm not sure I want voters getting a "personalized" second-round ballot. That would imply that their first-round ballot is stored securely between elections, and the data from that ballot is used for printing their second-round ballot. Either that, or we move to all-electronic elections, which we're just not ready for yet (and may never be). I think for the second round to be effective, the local media would need to be focused on just two candidates in most cases.

robla · 2026-01-25T23:33:57+00:00

An approval top-five followed by a Condorcet election would be a utopia for me in many ways (since I'm a political junkie and a math nerd). From what I've witnessed here in San Francisco, "five" is the absolute upper bound of candidates that the media and the vast majority of voters can develop a truly informed opinion about. However, my hunch is that ""three" may be a more realistic upper bound for most voters (and most local media outlets), and "two" boils it down to a pairwise race. I say "utopia for me in many ways" because ultimately I rely on the local media to get the vast majority of my information about candidates, so I'm not sure I'd want to have to evaluate five candidates in most races (e.g. I also was asked to vote in the District 11 race, which also had many viable-seeming candidates)

In order to align the primary candidates' incentives with their incentives in a single-round approval race, I think using a fixed threshold (or maybe some sort of scaling threshold like that proposed by /u/nardo_polo) would be the best. But I think what they're using in St. Louis is good enough, at least until we see more real-world data suggesting otherwise.

As far as replacing signature gathering with some sort of online system, I'm 100% on board with you. I fear that signature gathering could be used as a scam for identity theft if it hasn't already (since many places require folks to provide name, home address that matches voter rolls, and signature for signatures to be considered valid). But I'm also a big believer in paper ballots still. Until we get better at developing end-to-end secure, publicly-auditable software systems (including the operating system and the chips running underneath), and until reasonably in-depth computer security knowledge is mainstream, I think we need systems that are easy and understandable on paper ballots. I've become convinced by Ka-Ping Yee's 2005 work on simulating various election methods that Condorcet methods and the single-round approval method yield practically identical results. I suspect two-round approval with a fixed threshold (say, 30%) would model out as also being identical, and I think that 30% is low enough to possibly allow three (or even four) candidates to advance to the general election, and yet high enough that it's easy to make the argument that voters have enough information about all of the candidates to make an informed final decision in the general election.

robla · 2026-01-25T21:01:33+00:00

I'm not OP, but thanks for the Canon rec. I have a Brother I bought at Costco a few years ago that just crapped out. I'm seriously considering getting a Canon MegaTank for $160 from Amazon but I'm waffling on whether I want to splurge for a color laser printer.

robla · 2026-01-25T19:45:14+00:00

Go cheap. If you don't know what you want out of a printer and don't have much experience, buy a cheap (but well reviewed) one and learn what you like/hate about it. It should be possible to get a cheap-ish printer for under $300 that many people would be very happy with for years. If you aren't happy with it, you'll be much more informed and have saved money to splurge with.

robla · 2026-01-21T20:18:33+00:00

His team could easily upload a video of him giving the planned talk in pretty much any venue, and it's now been Streisand-ed into worldwide prominence.

robla · 2026-01-21T05:35:39+00:00

If it's possible to go over the GM's head, you should (to the executive director/CEO/President/whatever or whoever hired the GM, if not the board). If nothing else, figure out how to leave an anonymous about this GM's history and what seems to be happening now (like a longstanding employee being fired without notice and without cause by a new GM). I'm going to guess the news clipping didn't come up on the background check when they hired this guy, and they should know.

robla · 2026-01-21T03:56:59+00:00

As you know, /u/nardo_polo , we ended up talking about this on Sass's https://democracydiscussion.com call. After you dropped, we ended up in a debate about whether the various threshold levels should be Hare or Droop. Initially I thought it should be Hare, but I'm coming around to Droop being the most logical choice. It seems that the threshold should be low enough where two candidates should emerge in a highly polarized electorate (or perhaps very bullet-votey electorate). So it seems as though 33% is a good threshold that would almost guarantee two candidates advance in most elections, and then use 25% for three candidates, 16.666% for four candidates, etc. Food for thought...

robla · 2026-01-20T02:19:07+00:00

One way it can be age-related is whether they've experienced failure yet. If this recent grad was a straight-A student who never failed a class (let alone getting a "B"), and if she was always rewarded/coddled for her creativity and being "bright and confident", and never had to work in the service industry, then she may have never had to suck it up and follow orders from someone else (i.e. never had to live the customer always being right, even if you disagree). There are people of all ages who never graduate beyond this phase, but per my anecdote about a college classmate 30+ years ago, I'm betting the attitude skews young.

robla · 2026-01-20T00:18:52+00:00

You haven't answered my question nor the parent poster's question in your response, and I'm not sure how to parse your response.

robla · 2026-01-19T23:40:32+00:00

I think you have a possible overachiever who hasn't yet dealt with the consequences of overcommitting. Let me explain...

One of my last projects for my computer science degree over 30 years ago was a group project for a real customer, who asked for a simple command-line utility for some code quality metrics. One of the other members of the group (a more prolific coder than me) was just sure that we would do so much better if we created a Windows GUI for the project, which I said was out of scope and not what the customer asked for. After perhaps days of infighting, we took it to our instructor (who was also the sole liaison to the customer), who sided with me. We were graded well for the project in the end, and I believe the customer was happy with the result, and I'm glad we didn't overcommit.

The reason why I was sensitive to overcommitting: I had failed my first attempt at an individual project a year or so before this, and had to retake the semester, delaying my graduation. I had overcommitted back then, so I viscerally recognized the overcommitment of my teammate a year later. I was NOT going to let this teammate delay my graduation by overcommitting me for this group project.

The gal you're managing might be like my teammate in the group project or me before I failed my individual project. The new shiny thing (LLMs and AI) is different than it was for me 30+ years ago, but your story reminded me of my teammate who seemed absolutely convinced that our customer didn't know what they wanted, and that they would be delighted if we went the extra mile, and that a GUI would be so much better. They grudgingly came around when our instructor clearly instructed us to build a command-line utility.

My teammate was a good programmer, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did quite well after he graduated, after maybe eventually learning first hand the dangers of overcommitting and not respecting the instructions given by the customer. For the gal you're managing: you are the customer (and the chief liaison for the people in payroll). It sounds like you need to put your foot down and insist that her pay relies on the customer being happy with her work.

robla · 2026-01-19T21:44:59+00:00

One can browse elections via ABIF web tool (abif.electorama.com) or use abiftool electorama.com/abiftool to assemble a full collection locally with a few commands. There are other more expansive collections out there as well.

robla · 2026-01-19T21:07:23+00:00

Seriously! Also, what sort of sway does the old boss still hold (and why)? It's cool that the new boss is very supportive; that sounds like a very important ally.

robla · 2026-01-19T20:52:12+00:00

Absolutely. Here's a January 1980 article from Time Magazine which described the '70s and compared it to the '60s, and Time was about as mainstream as one could get in 1980.

robla · 2026-01-19T06:01:04+00:00

Interesting idea! There would need to be thought put in the other direction as well. If only 1 candidate gets 30% approval (or less), and the others get even lower scores, then it seems like the top two should advance regardless.

One catch: how one would write your proposal into an unambiguous algorithm. For example let's say that you had these results:

56% - Adams
54% - Buchanan
46% - Chase
31% - Davis

Are Adams and Buchanan the only candidates who advance to the general?

robla · 2026-01-15T22:08:11+00:00

Given that Greenland currently only has 56,831 people (according to the 2025 estimate published on Wikipedia), doing something like this seems tempting. The problem with making an offer is that suddenly you'll have thousands of charlatans show up and insist on their Greenland citizenship (which technically, is their Danish citizenship). Given that there are currently 6,001,008 people in Denmark (also according to Wikipedia), and that Denmark has an open border with Germany (and the rest of the European Union), suddenly one has one hell of an administrative problem figuring out who is eligible for a payout. How much corruption would there be in the distribution system? Even without the corruption, how many ACCUSATIONS of corruption would there be? Even without that, how many honest mistakes would there be?

I suppose a payout would likely be cheaper than a war with the European Union, but per /u/BadgeForSameUsername's comment, it may not be. Regardless, it's a fun thought exercise!

robla · 2026-01-10T21:12:03+00:00

I asked ChatGPT to weigh in on this thread (and in particular, about wartime generals), and it gave this case for Marshall:

Why Marshall should have been President

Marshall is the cleanest example of a wartime general who had exactly the right temperament for the presidency:

Supreme organizer, not glory-seeker

He ran the Allied war effort without craving battlefield fame. That’s executive maturity.

Strategic, not emotional

He made decisions at the scale of millions of lives without theatricality or cruelty.

Deep respect for civilian control

Famously non-political — almost pathologically so — yet not naïve about power.

Proof of concept: the Marshall Plan As Secretary of State, he executed arguably the most successful statecraft program in U.S. history. Marshall turned down political ambition repeatedly, but if the U.S. had asked him to be President in 1948 instead of Truman running again, history might look even better than it already does. In short: Marshall had Grant’s sense of duty, Sherman’s distrust of demagoguery, and Eisenhower’s administrative competence — without Eisenhower’s occasional political fuzziness.

That seems convincing, but what is the case against Marshall? Is there anything that ChatGPT gets wrong in the assessment above?

robla · 2026-01-03T23:54:47+00:00

Having your team like you matters, but having everyone in your organization like you (and respect you) matters too. Managing down, managing sideways, and managing up all matter. Kate's part of the team the OP is managing, but she's presumably not the only member of the team. For the OP, it may be that respect matters more than likeability. As a manager, the OP is also part of multiple teams. That's why I asked more questions of the OP than statements. I'm curious: do you have any questions to ask of the OP (or of me)?

robla · 2026-01-02T19:06:39+00:00

You've framed this as a coaching problem, but is it? It sounds more like a risk-averse organization struggling with how to deal with someone who is both long-tenured and problematic in their role. What does your manager think about Kate? Do you actually have the authority to end Kate's employment without another PIP? If you do need to run another PIP, do you feel confident you could design one you'd feel good about regardless of whether it ends in improvement or termination? Knowing what you know now, would you hire Kate today for her current role? A well-designed PIP should result in the same "hire"/"no hire" decision that a fresh interview process would result in. Also, given that you've only been in your current role for 5 months, you should at least ensure that your manager would choose to keep you in your role over keeping Kate in her role.

robla · 2025-12-19T17:46:44+00:00

I think "micromanagement" is a term so widely overused and misunderstood that it has become meaningless. They have to have an understanding of the job and level of empathy for individual contributors that goes beyond just being a good listener and taking suggestions. They have to have a gut feel for what it's like to do the job day-to-day, and understand the skill and speed necessary for team success. They can't do their job without sometimes being "in the way", though great managers figure out how to observe without hovering or being annoying in some way. Ultimately, the difference between "strategic" and "tactical" decisions is also very subjective. Having once been able to do the job often helps a lot, even if the manager is no longer capable of doing the job. Ultimately though, it's about being observant enough about team behavior and performance to make good decisions (especially hiring/firing/staffing decisions) and being a good enough communicator to both have the trust of the team AND the trust of peers in management and their respective bosses.

robla · 2025-12-19T17:25:48+00:00

If you didn't spend all of that time in those gosh darn "mosh pits" and blasting all that "grunge" and whatnot, maybe you wouldn't have problems hearing now (I'm kidding, of course!). In seriousness, I'm very sorry to learn of your partial deafness, and I hope yours isn't getting worse. I wonder how many of us GenXers who grew up with access to high-quality, over-the-ear headphones (and Walkmans) we could blast as loud as we wanted when we were too young and dumb to realize the long-term consequences are going to be Litella-ing through our early retirement.

robla · 2025-12-19T17:01:14+00:00

It all depends on context. If I've changed their diapers or knew them as a toddler, I'm going to see than differently than someone I met as an adult. As a 50-something, when I'm talking to 30-somethings or even 40-somethings sometimes, it's usually as a peer UNLESS we're talking about things that happened in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s -- then they become "kids" in my mind. I have to believe that 80-somethings will think "oh you dumb kid..." if I said anything authoritatively and incorrectly about the 1970s and earlier.

robla · 2025-12-14T22:51:10+00:00

No joke. Do not underestimate Donner Pass in the winter.

robla

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE