2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > 2. I agree that "who benefits" is a key question. But I think what I'm > talking about doesn't redistribute or decentralize power so much as > influence. And I'm willing to bet that those in power would be more likely > to be okay with that if it subverts the twin evils of extremism and apathy > among US_Americans w.o. ending effective two-party rule. >
Reassuring insiders is worthwhile, but it's more important to build pressure from grass roots. Insiders will *never* seek out a disruptive change in the status quo without outside pressure. That said, I think you'd be interested in my own proposals for single-winner and PR reform: SODA voting<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/SODA_voting>and PAL representation <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation>. Both were designed to be much more competitive with a minimum of disruption. I realize that right now I am just a guy, so far nowhere near in Fairvote's league for effective organization for reform, so I could forgive you for discounting my "crazy ideas" and pragmatically supporting IRV. But I'm working on a kick-ass website and web service - something that will be like http://modernballots.com/ but even better, and with a "donate" button that will have (I hope) an existing, large-membership good-government organization behind it. Can't say too much more right now. In other words: "I have a bunch of vaporware. What do you bring to the table?" :) > >> >>> Well, I believe that making more "more local" elections more competitive >>> and thereby more meaningful checks on $peech is something that would appeal >>> to the different factions of the #OWS a lot more than stuff on >>> single-winner reform. >>> >> >> This is a good non-partisan goal. Both PR and single-winner reform would >> help here. It is easier to convince people that this is your sincere goal >> when talking about single-winner reform, for the reasons above. >> > > dlw: You can't do that in "more local" elections. Giving folks more > options in the forms of rankings or approvals or what-not won't matter if > they are in an area that strongly supports one of the two major parties. > > And there's no point in trying to push for election rules that try to end > two party rule in a system that is dominated by two parties. What does > make sense is to push for election rules that end the tendency for > effective two party rule to devolve into effective single party rule. > Though you imply that you're only talking about PR, this could certainly describe my single-winner SODA proposal. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
