@lime said in STLR - Score Than Leveled Runoff might not be too complex for voters:
There's a big problem with holding any kind of party primary at all. You can find a very good post about this here. The issue is that candidates that are very representative of their party's beliefs can be very bad representatives for the beliefs of the electorate as a whole.
In this situation, the quality of different methods might even reverse: methods that are very bad, almost as bad as selecting a winner "at random", can end up being better. (Because this gives candidates who are "extreme" within their own party—i.e. very moderate—a shot at winning thanks to blind luck.)
I believe that a political party should be the master of its own domain. Thus in the latest version of my article concerning Top Four and Final Five Primaries (I hope to finish the dang thing today.) I write:
"Voters will judge parties by the candidates they nominate, therefore parties should be able to decide how their candidates are chosen.
We could eliminate primaries altogether; parties would nominate candidates on their own. This would eliminate the major party primary publicity advantage. Also, it would be one less election for voters to worry about and require less campaign contributions.
We could allow minor parties to have primary elections alongside the major parties. That would be fair. We should let each party choose between open, semi-open, or closed primaries, or to nominate candidates on their own. This could help minor parties generate much needed publicity.
Single-winner voting methods, Approval and Score Voting, give parties an incentive to nominate candidates who can garner broad support while advancing the party’s values and policies.
Proportional representation is the best way to form workable governments with multiple parties that support different values and policies. Each party will have an incentive to nominate candidates who can form coalitions and collaborate with colleagues to advance the party's values and policies."