2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 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. >> > > dlw: Agreed, but if the pressure is strategically placed then it becomes > far more convenient for the insiders to accommodate than to fight against > the proposed reforms. > >> >> 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 think I've read about the second one already. > > It's interesting. I'd rather just argue before the supreme court that the > law that prohibits multi-seat federal elections is unconstitutional because > of its harmful effects on minority voters and the fact that the specific > election rule used by states should be up to the states. >
I think the chances of that idea flying with the SCOTUS any time in the next 20 years are virtually nil. For me, the best option for PR is a seriously empowered grassroots push, on the level of the progressive movement or the civil rights movement (and something which hasn't happened since the latter, including the anti-Vietnam movement), which starts with local victories in cities and state legislatures and moves to push congress to make PR legal. It is not inconceivable that #OWS could develop into such a movement; I think that the Tea Party, on the other hand, has shot its wad. Then, 3-5 seat STV with a Droop quota, as advocated by FairVote, would be > feasible. > That's a great option, I agree. > >> 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. >> > > I've been where you are and still am for the most part. > Beware of the power of the ego to rationalize tilting against windmills... > >> >> In other words: "I have a bunch of vaporware. What do you bring to the >> table?" :) >> > Part of my motive for my empty bragging was to probe what your plans and skills, as opposed to your goals, are. I guess putting it in ironic quotes was not the best way to show that the question was serious, though friendly. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
