On May 30, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
OK, it seems that there are no objections to using this list to
organize a statement. I think this would explain the connection to
this list, but explicitly disclaim being an "official position" of
any persons or organizations besides its signatories.
Sounds like serious work.
Pick a meaningful subject - yet make that short
Here's the general points I'd like it to make:
Problems with plurality
-For voters
-Voter can NEED to back multiple candidates, AND not want to give
equal backing to all of those.
-Yet bullet voting can express voter desire, and should be
acceptable - (while agreeing enthusiastically that it is time to leave
plurality, some methods impose complications that may please method
designers and annoy voters when they can do fine with bullet voting).
-tactical dilemma
-A tactical vote is insincere
-A sincere vote is not decisive
-often no recourse
-foregone conclusions
-"corrupt vs. evil" elections
-overemphasis on which candidates are "relevant" makes campaigns
too expensive
-democracy for sale
-For the majority party
-More vulnerable to vote splitting / spoilers than the minority.
-For the minority major party
-Non-proportional results and disproportionate swings
-For issue-based activists
-Often even popular positions are out-of-the-mainstream in either
party, and thus shut out of the public debate
-For officeholders
-Security in office often depends more on demographics than on
the quality of your work
-Two-way races favor negative ads
-For third parties
-A total disaster
-Both third parties and minor ideas NEED a way for voters to
express interest to show how great the interest is, whether or not
approaching ability to win.
Solutions exist
Although no system is perfect, plurality is almost perfectly bad.
That is, there are systems which are superior in every important way.
-But watch out - we can certainly do worse than plurality if we
get careless.
-Myth: "Non-plurality systems lead to divided government."
-Things like "hung parliaments" and frequent shifts in party
control are a factor of a parliamentary system. The US three-branch
system is never going to be like Italy.
-Myth: "Voting reform only matters for third-party supporters"
-See advantages above for the first and second parties and for
officeholders
-Myth: "It's all about campaign finance."
-Election system reform and campaign finance reform would
support each other. Without election system reform, campaign finance
reform cannot solve the problem.
-Myth: "One man one vote" or "keep voting simple" mean that
plurality is the only way.
-While these systems are less-familiar than plurality, they
are just as democratic and accessible to all voters. Many are direct
elaborations of clear principles. All can be explained in a few
clear sentences.
List solutions
-Link to poll. This is why I think that a non-secret-ballot poll
with a few dozen votes would have value in and of itself, not just
as a way of choosing which methods to list.
-Careful - drafting questions for such can get biased - look at
the polls politicians write.
-List of solutions - a short description each, one or two
strengths for each system. Not more than one system described within
each "class" (ie, Condorcet, Median-based), although mentions of a
couple of others are OK.
-Separate lists for single-winner and PR solutions
-Certainly want both, but desirable if voter chores can be kept
similar.
-Mention, without too much detail, of other worthy non-partisan
reforms (anti-gerrymandering, limit supermajority requirements,
grassroots asset-voting, voting security, easy registration. The
latter two are not incompatible.)
Solutions considered
-IRV, Borda
-Some of the undersigned feel that these would be improvements
over plurality; others feel that their problems are as great as or
greater than those of plurality.
-This statement takes no position on these systems.
-Just listing the above two is implied backing:
-We know enough of IRV that it should get lost unless with much
competition.
-I apologize for not being ready to comment on Borda.
-I see Condorcet as important, and that range and asset need
considering - at least those three need to be on such a list - but
asset is too complex to live alone.
Pledge of solidarity
-The undersigned agree that all the systems mentioned above would
be improvements over plurality, and important reforms to US democracy.
-Although we may have preferences between the systems offered, we
will all support any of them.
-Any arguments we make about which specific system is better, or
about the weaknesses of a given system, should not be construed to
negate our support for reforming plurality.
Obviously, that's not a statement, just a rough first-draft of an
outline. Comments and changes are welcome.
Jameson
2011/5/30 Andy Jennings <[email protected]>
I think an official statement by this list is a great idea.
Andy
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]
> wrote:
This thread, like this list, has two purposes - practical advocacy
and mathematical exploration.
On the practical advocacy front, I'd propose a process:
0. We discuss get some degree of informal consensus on this process
itself - I imagine it will take about a week, so say, before Sunday
June 5th.
1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems with
plurality in the US context, and states that there are solutions.
Leave a blank space for a list of acceptable solutions. This
statement, when finished (after step 3) would be "signable" by any
members of this list, completely at their own option.
2. We take a vote on what options to list. We can use
betterpolls.com, remembering that the scores there are -10 to 10,
and negative/positive is mapped to approval/disapproval.
3. We list the options and the winner(s) in the statement and sign it.
4. When we have a good number of signatures, we put out a "press"
release to some bloggers who've shown an interest in the issue (e.g.
Andrew Sullivan)
My hope is that, despite the varied opinions, we could say something
clearly and strongly enough to have an impact.
JQ
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
