On 12/15/2011 1:40 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
> ---------- [see below] ----------
David, your evidence in support of delaying electoral experimentation
seems to be that FairVote's intended path is the only path on "the" map.
Keep in mind that maps in areas that have not yet been heavily traveled
are notoriously inaccurate.
Also consider that there are other paths -- including "American forms of
PR" -- that may not show up on your map.
Until there is a clear (unfuzzy) map that is charted using measurements
and experience, we must rely on principles.
I have already indicated one such principle, namely that elected
officials tend to oppose adopting a different election method from the
one through which they were elected.
I, and I assume others, would like to hear about any principles that
support your claim that we must follow the FairVote path.
Richard Fobes
On 12/15/2011 1:40 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Fobes <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc:
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:39:23 -0800
Subject: Re: [EM] Electoral Experimentation
On 12/15/2011 12:15 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
dlw: Within the third parties themselves, there'd need to be used
single-winner elections to determine their candidates/leaders/positions.
In these regards, there'd be great scope for experimentation with
single-winner election rules, especially since they'd have no commitment
to a particular single-winner election rule.
Fobes: You said that experimentation opportunities would be
"a good reason to strategically support IRV".
Presumably IRV would be used for both internal voting
"to determine their candidates/leaders/positions"
and for choosing candidates for public elections.
dlw: There'd be no need for such. The point is that if there were many
LTPs, local third parties, they'd have their own rules and could use
IRV[or another alternative to FPTP] to choose which rules they'd use for
internal voting and the determination of their candidates in elections.
Why would IRV-chosen party leaders be motivated to try
any other voting method (for either internal or
candidate-selection use)?
dlw: Because it'd be the American forms of PR, not IRV, that would give
the LTPs license to win representation and to have more voice. I said
"strategically support IRV for single-winner", not because it's a
god-send but because bickering endlessly about the best single-winner
election rule takes away from pushing for the aforementioned reform that
would then bring about many venues for electoral experimentation.
There's no good reason to presuppose that these smaller parties would
be beholden to IRV so as not to consider other options. And that is why
it's worthwhile to put aside the infinite number of other election rules
and focus on getting Am forms of PR plus IRV as key parts of the renewal
of the US's democracy.
dlw
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
