John B. Hodges said: > It is a wonderful thing to be a critic. One's moral purity and social > superiority are assured, without ever having to get out of one's > armchair.
You're making a point that I've been making lately on a libertarian discussion board (under a pseudonym). Apparently a prerequisite for wanting smaller government is passing purity tests so stringent that Thomas Jefferson (the guy who said "that government which governs least governs best") would probably be rated in the same category as Stalin. Of course, it isn't a great surprise that a third party movement would be like that. In our plurality system, third parties are, by definition, for people who reject the two primary choices as being unsatisfactory. Sure, some of us are pragmatists who want to build a third choice from the ground up, starting with local victories. Our goal is a third option that is genuinely distinct from (and better than) the two main options, but practical enough to still be electable. But for every pragmatist there's a purist, whose main goal is building a movement where he can safely reside among fellow purists, unhindered by the baggage of reality. They see no difference between a small step in the right direction and a step (of any size) in the wrong direction. Although I don't see the people on the list in such stark terms, I wouldn't be surprised if there are plenty of election reform advocates out there who fit into the purist category that I just described. Most of the people who advocate alternative election methods are fans of third parties, and third parties have a disproportionate number of purists. Maybe this list is moderated by its academic nature. It's already understood that much of what we discuss is of an academic nature (we're just as interested in a deep understanding of theory as we are in practical election methods). If somebody discusses a property of a particular method we're likely to suppress our inner purist urge to scream "That method isn't perfect!" because we understand that the person discussing it isn't necessarily saying we should implement it. He's just using it as the starting point for a line of inquiry. Of course, I have noticed that postings on PR are better-received if I add the disclaimer "When referring to various factions in the electorate I use the word 'party' only for convenience, recognizing that organized parties are only one of many types of factions that might exist in the electorate and deserve proportional representation. The purpose of using that convenient label is to identify the factions in the electorate and see whether a particular PR method fairly represents that group." So maybe this list isn't immune to that, but I haven't noticed a huge problem with the purity police. Then again, posting on a libertarian forum exposes you to purists so extreme that even the Taliban seem tolerant of dissent by comparison. So maybe my perception is warped. Alex ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
